CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 8 juin 1999

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389FD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:16pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sBA8DCCFC { width:35.45pt; display:inline-block } .s31BEBB9E { width:7.26pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE55CAA3E { width:1.26pt; display:inline-block } .s796BDE8F { width:14.11pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4D28B2E2 { width:24pt; display:inline-block } .s26138FEB { margin:0pt 26.05pt 0pt 35.45pt } .s9B8B5CE1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:4.75pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7058A54 { width:0.55pt; display:inline-block } .sE0EA7154 { width:21.33pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s560DCDD3 { margin-left:10.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sA6CD7BE5 { margin:0pt 40.2pt 0pt 35.45pt } .s9782B425 { width:22.01pt; display:inline-block } .sCD4D2F1A { width:24.67pt; display:inline-block } .s66441246 { width:19.97pt; display:inline-block } .sEB86F1CA { width:25.34pt; display:inline-block } .sB9C71BB { width:18.01pt; display:inline-block } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .s6EB35364 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:26.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5BA4079A { width:22.66pt; display:inline-block } .s8AFB426F { width:32.67pt; display:inline-block } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s936EB0A2 { width:17.01pt; display:inline-block } .s42715068 { width:268.5pt; display:inline-block } .s75601602 { width:3.09pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION   DECISION   AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF   Application no. 25651/94 by L. against Finland     The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section) sitting on 8 June 1999 as a Chamber composed of     Mr   G. Ress, President ,   Mr   M. Pellonpää,   Mr   I. Cabral Barreto,   Mr   V. Butkevych,   Mrs   N. Vajić,   Mr   J. Hedigan,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova, Judges ,   with   Mr   V. Berger, Section Registrar ;     Having regard to Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;     Having regard to the application introduced on 7 September 1994 by L.   against Finland and registered on 14 November 1994 under file no. 25651/94;     Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;     Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 7   January 1997 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants on 24 April 1997;   Having regard to the further information submitted by the applicants on 25   January   1999 and the observations in reply submitted by the Government on 9   March   1999;     Having regard to the parties’ oral submissions at the hearing on 8 June 1999;     Having deliberated;     Decides as follows:   THE FACTS     The applicants are Finnish citizens, born in 1965 and 1928 respectively and resident at the municipality of M., Finland The first applicant (“the applicant father”) is the adopted son of the second applicant (“the applicant grandfather”). Before the Court they are represented by Mr Juhani Kortteinen and Mr Sami Heikinheimo, lawyers practising in Helsinki, assisted by Ms Anu Suomela of the Association for Family Rights in Finland ( Perheen Suojelun Keskusliitto PESUE r.y.).     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.   A.   Particular circumstances of the case     The applicant father has two daughters, P., born in 1985, and S., born in 1991. The applicant father married the mother of his children, E., on 21 September 1991. E. became mentally ill after the birth of their second child, S., and was hospitalised for several times.     In the beginning of 1992 the parents were planning a divorce. On 20 January 1992 the Social Director of the City of K. placed the children in provisional public care, principally suspecting that P. had been sexually abused and supposing that S. was in serious danger of being subjected to similar abuse. P. was admitted for observation in a child psychiatric clinic and S. was placed in a substitute family. The applicant father and E. were opposed to the public care order.     On 30 January 1992 the Social Welfare Board ( sosiaalilautakunta, socialnämnden) of K. upheld the provisional public care orders. It also restricted the parents’ right of access to P. to two weekly visits at the hospital and decided not to disclose S.’s whereabouts.     The parents, represented by the Public Legal Adviser ( yleinen oikeusavustaja, allmänna rättsbiträdet) of K., appealed to the County Administrative Court ( lääninoikeus, länsrätten) of Vaasa.     On 9 March 1992 the social authorities informed the applicant father and E. that the child psychiatric investigation did not result in any finding that P. had been subjected to sexual abuse.     On 19 March 1992 the Social Welfare Board formally decided to place the children in public care. The Board considered that the parents were incapable of providing them with the stimulation necessary for their growth and development as well as with basic security. It noted that the mother was suffering from a mental illness and that there were problems in the parents’ relationship. P. had been used as an instrument in conflicts arising between the parents and the applicant father’s adoptive parents. Her development did not correspond to that of the average for her age.     The parents appealed, again represented by the Public Legal Adviser.     P. was later placed in the same substitute home as S.     On 19 May 1992 the parents lodged a complaint with the police concerning the children’s placement in public care and the implementation of the care orders. They accused both the officials and the members of the Social Welfare Board of having violated domestic law. Meanwhile, the Social Welfare Board also lodged a complaint with the police, accusing the applicants and their representative of threats and violent resistance against its officials.     On 28 June 1992 the parents were allowed to see their children for the first time after their placement in the substitute home.     On 17 August 1992 the County Administrative Court rejected the parents’ appeal against the public care order of 19 March 1992. The Court rejected their request for an oral hearing. The parents had stated that they had given up their plans to divorce and would be more motivated to co-operate with the Social Welfare Board. The Court nevertheless found that the deficiencies in the children’s care and the other home conditions risked jeopardising their development seriously.     On 17 August 1992 the County Administrative Court also rejected the parents’ appeal against the Social Welfare Board’s decision of 30 January 1992 to restrict their access to P. and not to disclose S.’s whereabouts.     The parents, still represented by the Public Legal Adviser, appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court ( korkein hallinto-oikeus, högsta förvaltningsdomstolen) against the County Administrative Court’s confirmation of the care orders. No further appeal lay open to them in respect of the access restriction and the non-disclosure of whereabouts.     On 31 August 1992 the Police District of the City of K. decided not to bring the parents’ complaint of 19 May 1992 to the attention of the Public Prosecutor as the matters complained of concerned the Social Welfare Board’s decision, which could be appealed against to the County Administrative Court, and did not appear to be a criminal matter.     On 3 December 1992 the Social Welfare Board prolonged the access restriction until 31 May 1993. It agreed to three two-hour long supervised meetings between the children and the parents. The Board prohibited all access between the children and their grandparents until 30 April 1993, considering that these contacts had been disturbing the children’s life in their substitute family as well as P.’s schooling.     The Public Legal Adviser advised the applicants not to challenge the access restriction and prohibition.     On 8 January 1993 the Supreme Administrative Court found no reason to amend the County Administrative Court’s decision of 17 August 1992.     The Public Legal Adviser advised against lodging a request with a view to having the care orders revoked.     On 4 May 1993 the Social Welfare Board prolonged the prohibition on access between the children and the grandparents until 31 December 1993. The Board again considered that the grandparents’ behaviour had disturbed the children’s life in the substitute home. It also noted their strong resistance against the children’s placement in public care.     On 8 June 1993 the Social Welfare Board prolonged the restrictions on access between the children and their parents until 31 May 1994. The children and their parents were to meet four times in supervised conditions in the substitute home. The Board again referred to the need to guarantee the children a peaceful growth environment and the need to ensure the substitute parents’ work peace.     On 9 September 1993 the Public Prosecutor brought charges against, inter alia, the applicant grandfather for having violently resisted social welfare officials H. and S. by verbally threatening them on 13 February 1992 as well as having verbally threatened K. on 31   July   1992, in September 1992 and on 18 December 1992. Similar charges were brought against the applicant father for threats expressed to K. on 27 July 1992 and on 15 January 1993. Further charges were brought against, inter alia, both applicants for false denunciation committed by the lodging of the complaint to the police on 19 May 1992. Finally, charges were brought against the applicant grandfather for defamation of public authority on account of a letter published in a daily and for certain counts of telephone disturbance directed against, inter alia, the Social Director. The applicants were later convicted on at least some counts and sentenced to fines. The applicant grandfather appealed to the Court of Appeal which, on 12   May 1995, upheld the District Court judgment.     On 25 October 1993 the parents requested permission that the access restriction be alleviated and that they be allowed to keep the children over Christmas 1993.     On 24 November 1993 the Social Welfare Board maintained the access restriction imposed on 8 June 1993 and prolonged it until 31 December 1994. From June to December 1994 the children and their parents were to meet three times in supervised conditions.     The applicant father appealed to the County Administrative Court, requesting (1) that he be granted cost-free proceedings and free legal assistance; (2) that an oral hearing and an inspection be held; (3) that the social welfare authorities should be considered as biased in dealing with the case; (4) that the Court should obtain P.’s own opinion in regard to the access arrangements, either indirectly or through a child psychiatrist; (5) that the access restriction be revoked; (6) that the Social Welfare Board be ordered to draw up a public care plan aiming at a reunification of their family; (7) that the Board be ordered to state clearly which concrete conditions in his home needed to be changed and to order the Board to support his efforts to change those conditions; and (8) that the Board be ordered to co-operate with an objective child psychiatrist. In support of his first request the applicant apparently adduced a certificate of indigence.     The Social Welfare Board submitted that the access restrictions had been necessary. It referred to, inter alia, an incident in August 1993, when the applicant father had forced P. to read statements written by the grandparents and which had mentioned the substitute family in negative terms. The substitute parents had told P. to call her parents but the telephone number of the substitute family had had to be changed after they had received certain inappropriate calls.     On 14 December 1993 the Social Welfare Board prolonged the prohibition of access between the children and the grandparents until 31 December 1994. The grandmother fell seriously ill and was exceptionally allowed to visit the children in their substitute home for three hours on 23 December 1993 in supervised conditions.     The grandparents appealed to the County Administrative Court, requesting (1) that they be granted cost-free proceedings and free legal assistance; (2) that an oral hearing be held; (3) that unlawfully obtained correspondence from them to the children should be ignored by the Court; (4) that the social welfare authorities should be considered biased to deal with the case; (5) that the Court should obtain P.’s own opinion in regard to the access arrangements; and (6) that the access restrictions be revoked.     In its submissions of 28 February 1994 the Social Welfare Board maintained that the access prohibition had been necessary on account of the grandparents’ resistance both against the public care and the activities of the officials of the Board. The Board annexed copies of letters and cards which the grandparents had sent to the children and which had mentioned the substitute family in negative terms. According to the Government, P. had herself opened the letters and given them to her substitute parents who in turn had forwarded them to the social authorities. In the Board’s opinion, the grandparents’ resistance had influenced the children and was capable of jeopardising their positive development. Other close relatives as well as friends of the children had pursued the children’s interests and these contacts had been in accordance with the children’s own opinion.     In their further submissions in reply of 5 March 1994 the grandparents stressed, inter alia, that the correspondence invoked by the Social Welfare Board was of an exclusively private character and had thus been unlawfully obtained and introduced in the proceedings.     In the beginning of 1994 the parents moved apart and the applicant father moved back to his adoptive parents’ home.     After an oral hearing on 17 February 1994 the District Court ( käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) rejected the applicant father’s request that his parents be appointed as the children’s supplementary custodians. Both their mother and the Social Welfare Board had objected to the request. The District Court’s judgment was later upheld on appeal.     On 7 June 1994 the County Administrative Court rejected the applicant father’s requests nos. 1-5. The Court noted that under the law a cost-free trial could not be granted in a case concerning access restrictions; there was no need for a hearing or an inspection; none of the officials or members of the Social Welfare Board who had decided in the case could be considered biased; P.’s opinion had already been obtained; and the applicant father’s negative feelings towards the public care situation and the children’s placement in a substitute home had been transmitted to the children during his visits, thereby clearly jeopardising their development and rendering the access restrictions necessary. The Court finally dismissed requests nos. 6-8 for lack of competence without an examination of their merits. No appeal lay against the decision in so far as the applicant’s requests had been rejected.     On 7 June 1994 the County Administrative Court also rejected the grandparents’ requests in their entirety. It again noted that a cost-free trial could not be granted in a case concerning access restrictions; there was no need for a hearing or an inspection; there was no obstacle to accepting the correspondence as forming part of the court documents in the case; none of the officials or members of the Social Welfare Board who had decided in the case could be considered biased; P.’s opinion had already been obtained; and the grandparents’ negative feelings towards the public care situation and the children’s placement in a substitute home had been transmitted to the children, thereby clearly jeopardising their development and rendering the access prohibition necessary. No appeal lay against the decision.     In response to a petition lodged by the parents the Deputy Parliamentary Ombudsman (eduskunnan apulaisoikeusasiamies, riksdagens biträdande justitieombudsman) , on   17   June   1994, found that the children’s placement in public care had been justified. In general terms, she nevertheless underlined that the grounds relied upon in a public care order should be factual and not speculative. For instance, sexual abuse of the child could not be relied upon as a fact in the absence of any expert findings corroborating such a statement. Although the issuing of a public care order could well be justified already on the basis of such suspicions, the grounds relied upon should refer to the symptoms from which the child had been found to suffer.     As for the access restrictions, the Deputy Ombudsman stressed, again in general terms, that the Social Welfare Board must actively support access arrangements between the children and both their parents and others who are close to them. Such access should not hamper the substitute family’s daily work. The access arrangements should normally be agreed upon when the public care plan was being drawn up. If an agreement could not be reached, an appealable decision was to be made and any restrictions were to be limited in time.     On 5 September 1994 the applicant father again requested that the Social Welfare Board revoke the public care orders. Alternatively, both applicants requested that the access restriction and prohibition be alleviated. On 29 November 1994 the requests were rejected. The Social Welfare Board ordered that the parents could see the children in their substitute family on five occasions during 1995. It prolonged the prohibition of access between the children and the grandparents until 31 December 1995.     In his respective appeals the applicant father requested, inter alia, that he be granted cost-free proceedings and free legal assistance. He also requested an oral hearing before the County Administrative Court.     In their own appeal the grandparents equally requested that they be granted cost-free proceedings and free legal assistance. They also requested an oral hearing.     In the case concerning the justification of the care order the County Administrative Court, on 25 April 1995, granted the applicant father cost-free proceedings and appointed Ms   Suomela as his representative. It rejected his appeal without holding an oral hearing. As for the access restriction, the Court ordered that from 1 May to 31 December 1995 he could see the children once a month in their substitute home. It rejected the remainder of that appeal without holding an oral hearing. Finally, the Court rejected the grandparents’ legal aid request and appeal.     On 8 December 1995 the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the applicant father’s request for an oral hearing and upheld the County Administrative Court’s decision in regard to the justification of the care order. It declined to examine his appeals in regard to the access restriction and prohibition.     On 19 December 1995 the Social Welfare Board rejected the grandparents’ further request for a revocation of the access prohibition and prolonged the prohibition until 30   April   1996. The grandparents appealed, requesting, inter alia, an oral hearing. On 16   April   1996 the County Administrative Court rejected the appeal without holding an oral hearing.     On 21 February 1996 two social welfare officials drew up a public care plan. The applicant father objected to the plan, considering that it did not comply with domestic law. It did not, for instance, specify the conditions in his home which should be improved before the care orders could be revoked. Instead, it stated that the public care order should be kept in force for the time being as there were no grounds to revoke the order.     In the spring of 1996 the parents divorced.     On 7 May 1996 the Social Welfare Board restricted the grandfather’s access to the children.     P. was psychologically examined by Dr L. between 12 August and 6 September 1996. The doctor’s statement, dated 29 October 1996, stated, inter alia , that P. had clearly expressed that she was not willing to meet her biological parents as often as the visits took place at that time. According to the doctor’s statement, P. felt especially nervous about the applicant father and the possibility that he might loose his temper. She did not feel nervous about her mother and she could meet her mother in accordance with the practice applied at that time. It was also stated that P. was not at all willing to meet the parents of the applicant father, because they wrote her letters, which she was not able to understand, and they criticised the substitute parents. According to the statement, the examination confirmed the suspicions of sexual abuse.     In 1996 the applicant father met the children once a month.     On 3 December 1996 the Social Welfare Board prohibited the grandparents’ access to the children until the end of 1998 and ordered that the applicant father could see the children in their substitute family four times a year in 1997 and 1998. The applicants appealed to the County Administrative Court which, on 17 March 1997, upheld the Social Welfare Board’s decisions, without holding an oral hearing requested by the applicants. The County Administrative Court’s decision not to hold an oral hearing was reasoned as follows:   (translation from Finnish)   “The County Administrative Court has earlier - 17 August 1992, 7 June 1994, 25   April 1995, 16 April 1996 and 26 September 1996 - considered the public care and restriction of the right of access in respect of the children. Later P. had requested that the meetings be made less frequent. The meetings take place under supervision, and a closer examination of the suspected sexual abuse, which possibly took place before P. was taken into care, is not necessary in this connection. An oral hearing would most likely not bring to light any new evidence affecting the matter, which is why an oral hearing is manifestly unnecessary.”     On 2 January 1997 the applicants’ representative Ms Suomela made a complaint to the National Authority for Medicolegal Affairs (t erveydenhuollon oikeusturvakeskus, rättskyddscentralen för hälsovården), concerning the examinations of P. made by child psychiatrist   H.L. and psychologist P.L. in the Central Hospital of S.     The question concerning the access restriction was discussed with the children on 26   November   1998 during a home visit at the substitute family’s home in the presence of two psychologists and two social workers. According to the Government, P. clearly expressed her wish that the meetings of the children with the applicants be organised in the same way and at the same frequency as previously.     On 16 December 1998 the Social Welfare Board again ordered that the applicant father could see the children in their substitute family four times a year until 31 December 2001. This decision was reasoned as follows:   (translation from Finnish)   “P. and S., who are placed in a substitute family, must be ensured a peaceful living environment.     The medical examination carried out in the child psychiatric clinic in the summer of 1996 revealed that [the applicant father] had abused P. sexually before she was taken into care. [He] has himself denied the accusations and thus tried to discredit the information given by his child. P. has said that she is nervous about the meetings and that she is happy with the present practice concerning the meetings, taking place four times a year under supervision in the home of the substitute family. She has also told that she is not willing to visit her father at his present home. More frequent meetings, making the child nervous, endanger her development.”     On 16 December 1998 the Social Welfare Board also again prohibited the grandparents’ access to the children until the end of year 2001. The decision is reasoned as follows:   “P. and S., who are placed in substitute family, must be ensured a peaceful living environment, and the substitute family must be able to look after them without disturbance.     More frequent meetings will not be in the best interest of the children, because the grandparents still strongly object to the placement of the children in a substitute family, and have expressed this in their letters to the children. The grandmother has also scared the children during an occasional meeting on 7   November 1998 by saying that the children had been kidnapped. The behaviour of the grandparents make the children confused and thus endangers their development.     P. told, in the child psychiatric clinic of the Central Hospital of S. in the summer of 1996 that [the second applicant] had abused her sexually before she was taken into care, and had also otherwise made her scared. P. has told that she does not want to see [the grandmother] and [the second applicant] at all.”     The applicants have not appealed against the Social Welfare Board’s decisions of 16   December 1998.     On 25 February 1999 the National Authority for Medicolegal Affairs, having obtained experts’ statements in this matter, rejected the applicants’ representative’s complaint of 2   January   1997. The conclusions of the Authority concerning the examinations in 1992 and, respectively, in 1996, are as follows:   (translation from Finnish)   “As regards the medical examination of [P.] which took place in the Central Hospital of S. in 1992, the National Authority of Medicolegal Affairs finds, in the light of the evidence available, that the examination in the hospital was justified. The child psychiatric examination since January 1992 was justified and the examination was mainly well organised.     The child psychiatric examination of [P.] both in the ward and in the clinic was to a large extent carried out with the usual methods of assessing extensively and profoundly the overall psychological development of the child.     On the whole the psychological examination of [P.] carried out by P.L. was extensive and carried out professionally. The methods used were appropriate. The investigation carried out does not show that the examination would not have been based on the null hypothesis.     However, the special question of possible sexual abuse of the child was not sufficiently taken into account in the examination of [P.] between 27 January and 5 March 1992, which is shown by the fact that there are relatively few patient documents concerning the examination in the ward and by the psychologist.     In the light of the evidence, the recommendation and the conclusions, in the opinion given by Senior Physician H.L. on 12 March 1992 to the Social Welfare Board of K., can be considered appropriate. ...   ... In the light of the evidence, the National Authority for Medicolegal Affairs firstly notes that observations had been made on the meetings between [P.] and her parents already in 1992 when she was examined in the ward. In the opinion of Senior Physician H.L. the finding of sexual abuse is not based on the symptoms of [P.] but on the information given by her. However, in this respect the reasons given in the opinion of H.L. could have been expressed somewhat more clearly.     It was not possible to video-tape or record in some other way the interview of [P.] concerning sexual abuse, because such information was in no way expected beforehand. ...   ... The child psychiatric examination of [P.] was initiated in 1996 because of reasons other than suspicion of sexual abuse, as has been mentioned above. Therefore the examination was a usual psychological examination. Because it was impossible to predict in what direction the examination would turn to, it was not possible at an early stage to take into account her rights or the consequences of information given by her, as regards the examination of sexual abuse. The observations given by the Psychologist P.L. to the National Authority of Medicolegal Affairs reveal that she had later informed [P.] in detail of what kind of measures would be taken as a result of the information given by her.     In the light of the evidence the National Authority for Medicolegal Affairs in the first place notes that the clinical examination of [P.] carried out by a doctor on 5   September 1997 was justified and adequately documented.     The psychological examination of [P.] carried out by Psychologist P.L. was extensive and on the whole professional. The methods of examination used were appropriate.     According to the evidence the examinations were carried out by Senior Physician H.L. and Psychologist P.L. objectively, and there are no indications of pressure by child welfare authorities in respect of the results of examination.     [P.] has been examined for a long time in the ward of the Central Hospital of S., and the examination included a very profound child psychiatric examination on the basis of which it can be concluded that the recommendations and conclusions made by Senior Physician H.L. were also appropriate.     On these grounds the National Authority for Medicolegal Affairs finds that the complaint by Anu Suomela, Master of Social Sciences, does not give reason for further measures.”     The decision of the National Authority of Medicolegal Affairs cannot be appealed against.     S. was heard on 17 March, 21 April and 4 May 1999 by a psychologist in the presence of a social welfare official. According to a statement, given on 24 May 1999, by the psychologist and social welfare official S. was a happy little girl who openly talks about her life. She was found to be at normal development level of her age. She seemed to be attached to her substitute parents and did not remember the time when she lived with her biological family. She found her mother’s visits to be pleasant but felt nervous about his father’s visits.               The care plan was reviewed on 25 May 1999 by the social welfare authorities. No changes were made to the access regulations.     B. Relevant domestic law and practice   (a)   The principles of the Child Custody and Right of Access Act and the Child Welfare Act     Section 1 of the Child Custody and Right of Access Act ( laki lapsen huollosta ja tapaamisoikeudesta,lag ang. vårdnad om barn och umgängesrätt 361/1983) defines what is meant by child custody and what is required from the custodian: objectives of custody are to ensure the well-being and the balanced development of a child according to its individual needs and wishes, and to ensure for a child close and affectionate relationships in particular with its parents; a child shall be ensured good care and upbringing as well as the supervision and protection appropriate for its age and stage of development, a child should be brought up in a secure and stimulating environment and receive an education that corresponds to its inclinations and wishes; and a child shall be brought up with understanding, security and gentleness. It shall not be subdued, corporally punished or otherwise humiliated. The growth of a child towards independence, responsibility and adulthood shall be supported and encouraged.     Section 4 of the Child Custody and Right of Access Act requires that the custodian of a child shall ensure its well-being and development, as provided for in Section 1. For this purpose it provides the custodian with the authority to make decisions on the care, upbringing and place of residence of a child and on other matters relating to the person of the child.     The Child Custody and Right of Access Act requires both the parents and authorities to ascertain the wishes and views of the child when making and executing a decision concerning the child, if this is possible in view of the age and stage of development of the child (Sections 4.2, 8, 9.4, 11, 34.1 point 3; and Sections 34,2. 39.1 and 2, 46.2). Court decisions concerning the custody of a child cannot be executed against the will of a child who has attained the age of 12.     Also according to the Child Welfare Act ( lastensuojelulaki, barnskyddslag 683/1983 as amended on 9.2.1990/139), a child who has attained the age of 12 was given an independent right to be heard in most important child welfare decisions related to his or her person and to appeal.     In situations where the child does not live with its parents or where they are separated because of need of protection or other corresponding reason, the child has in principle the right to keep up personal relations and contacts with its parents. However, this right can be limited on specific grounds and by certain procedures prescribed by law, for example, because of a danger and threat caused by contacts or on the basis of the best interests of the child (Section 2 of the Child Custody and Right of Access Act; Sections 19.2, 24 and 25 of the Child Welfare Act; Articles 9 and 10.2 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child).     According to Section 1 of the Child Welfare Act, a child is entitled to a secure and stimulating growing environment and to a harmonious and well-balanced development, and has a special right to protection. The objective of the Child Welfare Act is that a child will in all circumstances get such care and upbringing as is required by the Child Custody and Right of Access Act.   (b)   Assistance in open care     In case the parents or custodians of the child are not able to provide the child with sufficiently secure conditions for its growth and development, the Social Welfare Board and holders of its offices shall take the necessary measures in accordance with the Child Welfare Act. These measures include the assistance in open care referred to in Sections 12 to 14 and the duty to take a child into care and provide substitute care referred to in Section 16.           Section 13.1 of the Child Welfare Act (as amended by Act 139/1990) stipulates as follows:   “Sosiaalipalvelut ja muut tukitoimet. Kun lastensuojelun tarve oleelliselta osin johtuu riittämättömästä toimeentulosta, puutteellisista asumisoloista tai asunnon puuttumisesta tai kun mainitut seikat ovat oleellisena esteenä lapsen ja perheen tai sellaisen itsenäistymässä olevan nuoren kuntoutumiselle, joka ennen 18-vuottaan   on ollut lastensuojelun asiakkaana, on kunnan viivytyksettä järjestettävä riittävä taloudellinen tuki sekä korjattava asumisoloihin liittyvät puutteet tai järjestettävä tarpeen mukainen asunto.”   (translation from Finnish)     “When the need for child welfare is caused primarily by inadequate income, deficient living conditions or lack of housing, or when these factors constitute a serious obstacle to the rehabilitation of a child and family, or a young person in the process of becoming independent who had been a social welfare client before attaining the age of 18, local authorities must provide adequate financial support without delay, and correct deficiencies in housing conditions or provide housing according to need.”     Assistance in open care referred to in Section 13.2 of the Child Welfare Act includes general assistance in accordance with the Social Welfare Act ( sosiaalihuoltolaki, socialvårdslag 710/1982) . In addition to general assistance, special forms of assistance are mentioned: lay helper or supporting family; adequate therapy; holiday and recreational activities; and assisting a child in his or her education and training, in job and home finding, and in his or her leisure activities and other personal needs, by providing financial and other support.     The assistance shall be provided in co-operation with the child or young person and its parents or other persons caring for them.   (c)   Taking a child into care and substitute care     According to Section 16 of the Child Welfare Act, the Social Welfare Board shall take a child into care and provide substitute care for him or her if the child’s health or development is seriously endangered by lack of care or other conditions at home, or if the child seriously endangers his or her health and development by abuse of intoxicants, by committing an illegal act other than a minor offence, or by any other comparable behaviour, the measures of assistance in open care are not appropriate or have proved to be inadequate; and substitute care is considered to be in the best interests of the child.     According to Section 9.2 of the Child Welfare Act, substitute care shall be provided without delay where it is needed and is in the best interests of the child.     If a child is in imminent danger or otherwise in need of an immediate care order and substitute care, the Social Welfare Board may take him or her into care without submitting the decision to the County Administrative Court for approval (Child Welfare Act, Section 18).     An emergency care order shall expire within 14 days of the decision unless it is taken up as a normal care order referred to in Section 17 during the said period. Such a care order must be handled within 30 days, or on special grounds within 60 days of the emergency order. A decision on emergency care can be appealed in the normal way.   (d)   The duration and termination of care     Care in accordance with Section 16 of the Child Welfare Act terminates when the child attains the age of 18 or concludes marriage. Public care shall be terminated earlier where the preconditions for the termination of care exist.     According to Section 20 of the Child Welfare Act, the Social Welfare Board shall discharge a child from care, when the need for care or substitute placement referred to in Section 16 no longer applies, unless such discharge is clearly contrary to the best interests of the child.     When an order to take a child into care is given, it is always valid until further notice and the termination of the order must always be considered separately taking into account the best interests of the child, in accordance with Sections 9 and 20 of the Child Welfare Act.   (e)   Custodians and their rights     Taking into care differs from adoption in so far as the parents are able to keep limited custodial rights and guardianship responsibilities. Taking a child into care also maintains contact between the child and the parents as well as relationships under family law such as statutory succession, including the right to a family name and to inheritance.     When a child is in care, a court may decide, through separate civil proceedings initiated upon application, who shall be given custody and guardianship of the child as stipulated in the Child Custody and Right of Access Act and the Guardianship Act ( holhouslaki, lag angående förmynderskap). Such proceedings take place in a general court of first instance. The Social Welfare Board has the competence to initiate an application concerning the custody and right of access in a general court and the right to be heard in the matter. The court decision does not directly affect the administrative decision of taking a child into care nor its enforcement.   (f)   The competence of the Social Welfare Board     On the custody of a child in care Section 19.1 of the Child Welfare Act stipulates as follows:   “Huostaanotetun lapsen huolto. Kun lapsi on otettu sosiaalilautakunnan huostaan, sosiaalilautakunnalla on huostaanoton tarkoituksen toteuttamiseksi oikeus päättää lapsen hoidosta, kasvatuksesta, valvonnasta ja muusta huolenpidosta sekä olinpaikasta. Sosiaalilautakunnan tulee kuitenkin pyrkiä yhteistoimintaan lapsen vanhempien ja muiden huoltajien kanssa.”   (translation from Finnish)   “When the Social Welfare Board takes a child into care, it shall be empowered to decide on the child’s care, upbringing, supervision, other welfare, and residence. The Board shall, however, make every effort to co-operate with the parents or other custodians of the child.”   (g)   The right of access     Through a decision to take a child into care, the Social Welfare Board automatically takes over the competence to decide on the contacts between the child and its parents and other persons close to the child (Section 19.2 of the Child Welfare Act).     According to Section 24 of the Child Welfare Act, a child who is in substitute care shall be ensured the continuous and secure human relations that are important for his or her development. The child is entitled to meet his or her parents and other persons close to him or her and to keep in touch with them. The Social Welfare Board shall support and facilitate the child’s access to his or her parents and to other persons close to him or her.     The right of access is a right of the child. Thus, this right cannot be enforced in a way that would harm the child or would be against the best interests of the child. The child has no obligation to keep in touch with its parents.     Section 25 of the Child Welfare Act stipulates the grounds on which a child’s access to its parents may be restricted. The Social Welfare Board or the director of a residential home may restrict the right of access of a child in substitute care to its parents or other persons close to him or her, as stipulated in Decree, if such access clearly endangers the development or safety of the child; or if such a restriction is necessary for the safety or security of the parents, or the children or staff in the residential home.     On the above-mentioned grounds, the Social Welfare Board may decide that a child’s whereabouts shall not be disclosed to its parents or custodians while the child is in care.     According to Section 25 of the Child Welfare Act and Section 9 of the Child Welfare Decree ( lastensuojeluasetus, barnskyddsförordning 1010/1983) , a decision concerning the restriction of the right of access shall be valid for a specified time, and it shall mention the persons whose rights are restricted. In addition, the decision shall mention what kind of contacts are restricted by the decision and to what extent the restriction is in force.     The manager of a child welfare institution may decide on a brief restriction, if the restriction is in force for a maximum of one month. When it is necessary to continue the restriction or when it is necessary to order it for a longer time than one month, the Social Welfare Board shall decide on the matter.     A decision to restrict the right of access restricts the child’s right to meet its parents and other parents close to the child. Such close persons to the child are the child’s custodian or other legal representative, members of family and those persons who have in reality kept in touch with the child before and when the child has been in care.   (h)   Care plan       A care plan shall be made for each case of family-orientated and individual child welfare, unless the matter under consideration requires only temporary counselling or guidance. This plan must be adjusted when necessary.     In case of a child taken into care (Section 16 of the Child Welfare Act) or a child placed in residential care as assistance in open care (Section 14 of the Child Welfare Act) the care plan shall mention the purpose and objectives of the placement; what kind of special support will be organised for the child, for the persons in charge of the child’s care and upbringing and for the child’s parents; how the child’s right of access to its parents and other persons close to the child is going to be organised; and how after-care is going to be organised.     According to Section 4 of the Child Welfare Decree, the care plan shall be elaborated in co-operation with the parties.   (i)   Right to obtain information     The social welfare authorities have, in accordance with Section 56 of the Social Welfare Act, the right to get the necessary information from other authorities in the performance of their work, without prejudice to the obligation of confidentiality.     According to Section 40.1 of the Child Welfare Act, the authorities have the duty of notification as follows:   “Ilmoitusvelvollisuus. Jos sosiaali- ja terveydenhuollon, koulutoimen, poliisitoimen tai seurakunnan palveluksessa taikka luottamustoimessa oleva henkilö on virkaa tai tointa hoitaessaan saanut tietää ilmeisestä perhe- ja yksilökohtaisen lastensuojelun tarpeessa olevasta lapsesta, hänen on ilmoitettava asiasta viipymättä sosiaalilautakunnalle.”   (translation from Finnish)   “If, in the course of his or her activities, an employee or elected official in health care, social welfare, education, the Police or the Church of Finland gets to know about a child in evident need of family-oriented or individual child welfare, he or she shall notify the Social Welfare Board without delay.”     According to Section 40.2 of the Child Welfare Act, any other person may similarly notify the Local Welfare Board.   (j)   Child welfare authorities     According to Section 4 of the Social Welfare Act, a Social Welfare Board, with several members elected by the municipality, shall be responsible for providing social welfare in its area, and shall be charged with the responsibilities assigned to social welfare boards in other Acts. The Social Welfare Board shall approve the general principles for the provision and development of child welfare under its supervision.     The Social Welfare Board shall also represent the municipality, secure its rights and speak on behalf of the municipality in the individual application of social welfare measures, and conclude agreements and other judicial acts on behalf of the municipality in this respect.     According to Section 12 of the Social Welfare Act, the decision-making authority of a municipal Social Welfare Board can be delegated to officials subordinate to such board, with the exception of decisions involving compulsory welfare for an individual. Thus, the social welfare director named by the Social Welfare Board may make decisions concerning emergency care (Section 18), decisions concerning orders to take a child into care or to provide substitute care (Section 16), and decisions to terminate care (Section 20) referred to in the Child Welfare Act, when the different parties have no objections to the decision.   (k)   Appeal in accordance with the Child Welfare Act     According to Section 35 of the Child Welfare Act, the relevant provisions of Chapter 7 of the Social Welfare Act shall be applicable to any appeal against a decision made under this Act, unless otherwise stipulated in the Child Welfare Act. The special provisions of the Child Welfare Act have precedence over the general provisions in the following way.     According to Section 17.2 of the Child Welfare Act, a decision made by the Social Welfare Board on taking a child into care or placing him in substitute care, must be submitted within thirty days to the County Administrative Court for approval, if a child who has attained the age of 12 or his or her custodians oppose the measure or if the hearing required by Section 17.1 of the Act could not be arranged.     According to Section 36, decisions concerning taking into care or placement in substitute care can be appealed to the County Administrative Court within thirty days of notification of the decision. During that time, such an appeal may also be lodged with the local Social Welfare Board which shall forward it to the County Administrative Court together with its own statement within fourteen days. The submission and the appeal shall in this case be dealt with and decided at the same time.     Section 37.1 of the Child Welfare Act stipulates that appeals against a decision on care orders, on placement in substitute care, on termination of care, or on a matter concerning housing, as stated in Section 13.1 of the Act, made