CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 27 avril 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s3C38CC87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:left } .s64A09B87 { width:5.18pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s2E3BD715 { width:11.51pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sEF2E1127 { width:82.46pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s232BA69C { width:57.09pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sDD35F56 { width:9.5pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s342EFE4F { width:237.17pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sD86A583 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:left } .s7DEE29A6 { width:195.14pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC61197A1 { width:217.82pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s40E223D1 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sDD435C07 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2FB2777F { width:13.48pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s6BBACBD8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sEEE3CE35 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s160BBE39 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s4B773175 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s3C1A34E8 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3A1A701 { width:10.15pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sBDC18A57 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8750BF75 { width:8.15pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s24C63AC { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB0DC05C3 { width:8.81pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s147369FC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9C05AC20 { width:9.49pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s9019FD2F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s397ED72C { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s61BF121A { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2F785AAD { width:7.48pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC7D459DF { width:10.14pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s2C018AE5 { width:6.82pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF0B473AD { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s4442EB1B { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7D5E95FA { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:41.7pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7A3B44D7 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD33C961E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:41.7pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s168FBFCE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:51.9pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF417883B { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:61.8pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s82FAFA5C { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:72.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s19D2D913 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:72.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFB63EB62 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:61.8pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB7656B26 { width:5.15pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA88AA7F5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8AD34D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s683D645B { width:6.81pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s6E97E8AF { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s68520B7C { width:6.99pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8DCCCE3B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt } .sFDE7661F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s4DECE301 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:left } .sCDF231BD { width:49.22pt; display:inline-block } .s22C8124D { width:150.76pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .s96CBFD02 { width:269.1pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4C76DDD5 { width:283.5pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }       FOURTH SECTION     CASE OF K. AND T. v. FINLAND   (Application no. 25702/94)     JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   27 April 2000         THIS CASE WAS REFERRED TO THE GRAND CHAMBER WHICH DELIVERED JUDGMENT IN THE CASE ON 12/07/2001     This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article   44   §   2 of the Convention. It is subject to editorial revision. In the case of K. and T. v. Finland, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting 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, and of Mr V. Berger , Section Registrar. Having deliberated in private on 8   June   1999 and on 30   March   2000, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 25702/94) against the Republic of Finland lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article   25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”). The applicants, K. and T., are Finnish nationals, born in 1964 and 1968 respectively. They are residents of the municipality of S., Finland. They were represented before the Commission by Ms A. Suomela of the Society for Family Rights in Finland ( Perheen Suojelun Keskusliitto PESUE r.y.) . The application was introduced on 26   October   1994 and was registered on 17   November   1994 under file no. 25702/94. 2.     The object of the application was to obtain a decision as to whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under Article 5, Article 6 §   3   (c) and   (d), Articles 8, 10 and 12 taken either alone or together with Article 13 of the Convention. 3.     On 27   June   1996 the Commission decided to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and invited them to submit observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. The Government, represented by Mr A. Kosonen, Co-Agent, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, submitted their observations on 7   January   1997, to which the applicants replied on 24   April   1997. 4.     On 4   March   1997 the Commission granted the applicants legal aid. 5.     Following the entry into force of Protocol No.   11 on 1   November   1998 and in accordance with the provisions of Article 5 §   2 thereof, the case fell to be examined by the Court in accordance with the provisions of that Protocol. In accordance with Rule 52 §   1 of the Rules of Court, the President of the Court, Mr. L. Wildhaber, assigned the case to the Fourth Section. The Chamber constituted within the Section included Mr M. Pellonpää, the judge elected in respect of Finland (Article 27 §   2 of the Convention and Rule 26 §   1   (a) of the Rules of Court) and Mr G. Ress, the Acting President of the Section and the President of the Chamber (Rules 12 and 26 §   1   (a)). The other members designated by the latter to complete the Chamber were Mr I. Cabral Barreto, Mr V. Butkevych, Mrs N. Vajić, Mr J. Hedigan and Mrs S. Botoucharova (Rule 26   §   1   (b)). 6.     The applicants submitted further information to the Court on 25   January   1999, to which the respondent Government replied on 9   March   1999. The Government submitted further information on 26   May   1999. 7.     On 23   March   1999 the Chamber decided to hold a hearing in camera on the admissibility and merits of the application. 8.     On 11   May   1999 the President of the Chamber decided, in accordance with Rule 33   §§   3 and 4 of the Rules of Court, that all the documents in the case file should not be accessible to the public and that the identity of the applicants should not be disclosed. He also decided that the legal aid granted to the applicants shall continue in force for the purposes of their representation before the Chamber. 9.     The hearing took place in camera in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 8   June   1999. There appeared before the Court: (a)   for the Government Mr   H. Rotkirch, Ministry for Foreign Affairs,   Agent , Mr   A. Kosonen, Ministry for Foreign Affairs,   Co-Agent, Ms   C. Busck-Nielsen, Ms   P.-L. Heiliö, Ms   A.Liinamaa, Mr   J. Piha,   Advisers ; (b)   for the applicants Mr   J. Kortteinen, Mr   S.Heikinheimo,   Counsel, Ms   A. Suomela,   Adviser .   The Court heard addresses by them, and also their replies to questions put by the Court and by several of its members individually. 10.     On 8   June   1999 the Chamber declared admissible the applicants’ complaints under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention concerning the taking of children into public care and related access regulations. 11     On 9   June, 29   July, 27   August, 13   and   15   September, 6   October, and 15   November   1999, the applicants and the Government variously produced a number of documents, either at the President’s request or of their own accord. AS TO THE FACTS I.   the circumstances of the case 12.     29/06/1999 26/10/1994 17/11/1994 25702/94 K. and T. Finland 4 1 At the beginning of the events relevant to the application, K. had a daughter, P., and a son, M., born in 1986 and 1988 respectively. P.’s father is J. and M.’s father is V. From March to May 1989 K. was voluntarily hospitalised for about three months, having been diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia. From August to November 1989 and from December 1989 to March 1990, she was again hospitalised for about three months on account of this illness. In 1991 she was hospitalised for less than a week, diagnosed as suffering from an atypical and undefinable psychosis. It appears that social welfare and health authorities have been in contact with the family from 1989. 13.     The applicants were initially cohabiting from the summer of 1991 to July 1993. In 1991 both P. and M. were living with them. From 1991 to 1993 K. and V. were involved in a custody and access dispute concerning P. In May 1992 custody of P. was transferred to V. and she was ordered to live with him. 14.     K. was again hospitalised from 22   April to 7   May   1992, from 13   May to 10   June   1992, as well as from 11 to 17   January   1993, on account of psychoses. She was in compulsory care between 15   May and 10   June   1992. According to a medical report dated 15   May   1992, K. was paranoid and psychotic. On 19 March 1993, according to the social welfare authorities’ records, there had been a discussion between a social worker and K.’s mother. K.’s mother had said that her daughter’s health condition was really bad and that K. had destroyed a childhood picture of hers, a wedding photo of the mother, broken a glass and “pierced the eyes” of all appearing in the photos. K.’s mother had said that she was tired with the situation, as she did not get any support from the mental health authorities. She had added that she was worried and afraid that “again something must happen before K. is admitted to care”. On 24   March   1993 M. was placed under observation with a view to determining whether she should be placed in compulsory psychiatric care, having initially been diagnosed as suffering from psychosis. The conditions for compulsory care were not considered to be met but she remained in voluntary care until 5   May   1993. 15.     Allegedly, J. did not allow K., P. and M. to meet. In the spring of 1993 K.’s access to P. was further limited by the courts. At the time she was pregnant. 16.     According to the records of the social welfare authorities, M. showed signs of behavioural problems. On 30   March   1992, a psychologist reported how M. had played with two dolls saying - in very vulgar words - that they were performing sexual acts. On 17   February 1993 K. was said to have broken a mirror in the presence of M. who had kept repeating: “mother broke the mirror...”. Notes of the social authorities of, inter alia , 24   and 30   March   1993 state that games which M. played and pictures he drew were of a destructive nature. According to the notes of the last-mentioned day, he had lately, in joint singing exercises of the day-care home, shown enormous hate, threatening “to kill everybody”. The occasions when K. fetched him were described as “an unpleasant show”, M. shouting and hitting his mother who did not react. It was noted, however, that the doll plays with sexual connotations had disappeared. On 7   June1993 it was reported by the social welfare authorities that when K. and T. had come to the children’s home where M. was staying, the latter had undergone a total change in his behaviour, turning into anger, hate, swearing etc. T. had told in the children’s home that he was really tired with the situation and that in his view K. was in need of hospitalisation. When a visit to the health centre had been suggested to her, she had become very angry. 17.     According to the records of the social welfare authorities, there had been a discussion between K., her mother, T. and a number of social and mental health care officials, on 31   March   1993, during which it was mentioned that the authorities might have to intervene, from the child protection point of view, with M.’s upbringing in a more drastic way than had been the case so far. It appeared that in connection with K.’s recent hospitalisation T. had “forcibly” taken her from a restaurant, which had made K. furious, with the consequence that she had thrown things around, for example the micro wave oven had ended up on the floor. T. had said that K. was unable to control herself. 18.     On 3   May   1993 a social welfare official decided on behalf of the Social Welfare Board ( perusturvalautakunta, grundtrygghetsnämnden) of S. to place M. in a children’s home for a period of three months. This was to be regarded as a short-term support measure pursuant to the 1983 Child Welfare Act ( lastensuojelulaki, barnskyddslag 683/1983; “the   1983 Act” ) . The applicants had been consulted, together with K.’s mother and sister, on 8   April   1993, in order to find an open care measure which would be functional. According to the records held of that meeting, no such practical measure had been proposed by any of the participants. The applicants had then been heard again on 21   April   1993 and had not objected to the placing of M. in a children’s home. 19.     In an opinion, requested by the Social Welfare Board, doctors M.L. and K.R., on 12   May   1993, considered that K. was not at that time able to care for M., but that her mental state could not be regarded as permanently preventing her from caring for him. Doctors M.L. and K.R. served at the hospital of H., where the applicant had been cared for since 1991 during the periods indicated above. 20.     On 11   June   1993, the social welfare official who had decided on 3   May   1993 to place M. in a children’s home informed in writing the University Hospital of T. and the local hospital of S. that she was very worried about the health of K. and her forthcoming baby. She requested the hospitals to contact her immediately at the time of K.’s arrival in hospital and, especially, at the time of her delivery. She also expressed a wish that the health care professionals should pay special attention to the relationship between the mother and the new-born baby from the very beginning. 21.     On 18   June   1993 K. was taken into a district hospital, where she gave birth to J. on the same day. According to the hospital records, the mother stayed calm during the delivery. After the delivery a written decision concerning an emergency care order, according to which the child was not to be given to the mother, was served on the hospital. The child was accordingly transmitted to the children’s ward. The mother’s behaviour in the ward was later found to be somewhat restless but not clearly disordered. It was mentioned in the records that she understood the situation and wanted to leave the hospital the following day. Medication to prevent the secretion of milk was prescribed. It seems that K. left the hospital on 19   June   1993, i.e. the following morning, without a post-natal examination. She went to her mother’s place where she started pushing an empty baby carriage around the rooms. 22.     J. was immediately placed in provisional public care in pursuance of Section 18 of the 1983 Act. After the birth of their child, K. and T. were informed of the decision by two social workers at the hospital of H. The Social Director, who decided on behalf of the Social Welfare Board, noted that K.’s mental state had been unstable during the end of her pregnancy. He considered that the baby’s health would be endangered since K. had found out about the plans to place the baby in public care. The Social Director finally considered that the baby’s father, T., could not guarantee its development and safety. In addition the Social Director referred to the family’s long-lasting difficulties, i.e. K.’s serious illness and occasionally uncontrolled emotional reactions which could be traumatic for the children, T.’s inability to care for both J. and K., K.’s inability to receive guidance, the impossibility of placing the whole responsibility for J.’s development on T., and the impossibility of providing open-care support measures to the necessary extent. The applicants were not heard prior to the decision. On 24   June   1993 the applicants were also notified in writing of the decision to take the new-born baby into public care. The notification was also faxed to K. 23.     On 21   June   1993 the Social Director also placed M. in provisional public care, citing principally the same reasons as in his decision of 18   June   1993 concerning J. 24.     On 21   June   1993 the Social Welfare Board took note of the provisional public care orders and prohibited all unsupervised access between on the one hand, K., and, on the other hand, J. and M. respectively. The number of supervised visits, however, was not restricted. The Board decided to continue the preparation for taking M. and J. into care. 25.     At the family centre a meeting was held by social welfare workers, on 21   June   1993, before the arrival of the baby from the hospital and in the absence of the applicants. It is mentioned in the report that there was a plan to prohibit the mother’s visits for a month on the ground that her reactions could not be predicted as she had, for example, broken things at home. After this initial period she would be allowed without restriction to visit the baby, but have to be accompanied by her personal nurse. However, this plan was not executed. There is a note in the daily report of 24   June, according to which “the mother may come with her personal nurse if she wants. Other visitors not allowed for the time being.” 26.     K. was asked to appear with T. at the social welfare office on 22   June   1993 at 11.30 a.m. in order to be informed of the decision of 21   June   1993 on M. by the Social Director. On 24   June   1993, K. and V. (M.’s biological father) were notified in writing of the decision of 21   June   1993. The notification was also faxed to K. 27.     On 22   June   1993 K. was hospitalised voluntarily at the hospital of H. on account of psychosis, having obtained a referral from a doctor at a health care centre. She was treated there until 30   June   1993. 28.     On 23   June   1993 J. was placed in the family centre. T. visited her the same day. 29.     In the beginning of July   1993, T. moved away from the applicants’ home, having been told by the social welfare officials that he had to break off his relationship with K. “if he wanted to keep” J. The applicants nevertheless continued their relationship. 30.     On 15   July   1993 the Social Welfare Board upheld the provisional care orders concerning J. and M., invoking reasons similar to those mentioned in the emergency care orders (see §   22 above), and prolonged the access restriction until 15   September   1993. K. was allowed to see the children only in the company of her personal nurse. The Board essentially considered that K.’s state of health remained unstable; that she was suffering from aggressive and uncontrolled emotional moods; and that the public care proceedings were a mentally strenuous ordeal for a patient. As regards J., the Board therefore believed that her personal security could be jeopardised if access were to take place without supervision. As regards M., the Board feared that K.’s visits to the children’s home “could no longer be controlled by its staff, which would not be in his interest”. Before the decisions of 15   July   1993 the applicants had been heard and expressed their objection to the care decisions envisaged. 31.     On 15   July   1993, K. visited both her children, accompanied by her personal nurse. The diary notes mentioned that it was “a difficult situation”. 32.     On 19   July   1993, T. moved to the family unit of the family centre with J. 33.     From 20 to 21   July   1993 K. was again hospitalised in voluntary care at the open ward of the hospital of H. on account of a psychosis. She, however, left the hospital the following day. On 26   July   1993 she was placed under observation with a view to determining whether she should be placed in compulsory psychiatric care. On 30   July   1993 she was committed to compulsory psychiatric care. According to the patient’s documents her relatives had earlier been worried about her and contacted the hospital in order to get her into hospital care. They reported that K. had disappeared from her home, where she had behaved in an unsettled and aggressive manner. Her hospitalisation lasted until 27   October   1993, i.e. three months. 34.     During the period of 18   June to 31   August   1993 K. visited her children at their respective children’s homes. During the visits she was accompanied by her personal nurse from the hospital, who was in contact with the social welfare authorities and arranged the visits according to K.’s state of mental health. On the basis of the centre’s diary, she had visited J. twice during this period. 35.     According to a statement made by a social welfare worker on 4   August   1993, T. had taken good care of J., first at the hospital until 23   June   1993 and later on at a family centre. It was agreed that J. would stay at the family centre and that T. would visit her every other day. J. would visit her father for the first time from 13 to 15   August   1993, during which time T. would organise her christening. The intention was that the baby could move in with her father in the future. 36.     T’s travel expenses to the centre were paid for by the social welfare authorities. From the centre’s records it can be deduced that T. succeeded in creating a relationship with the baby and learned to take good care of her. The home leaves were spent with T. first at his mother’s house and later in his new home. 37.     On 12   August   1993, the Social Welfare Board referred both public care orders to the County Administrative Court ( lääninoikeus, länsrätten) of Turku and Pori for confirmation, as the applicants had opposed them. In support of its referrals the Board submitted a statement by a social welfare official dated 25   August   1993. According to the statement, T. would not be able to care both for M. and the new-born J. alone, since K. was at the same home and had been psychotic for the last four years. T. had been in contact with J. at the children’s home three to four times a week. While staying in a flat attached to a municipal children’s home, he had cared for J. for two whole weeks and had subsequently cared for her three days out of the week in his new home. The Board had therefore begun investigating whether it would be possible to entrust him with the responsibility for J. with the help of support measures taken by the Board. 38.     On 15   August   1993, J. was christened in the presence of K., T. and M. 39.     A consultation was held at the children’s home, on 18   August   1993, in the presence of T. According to the statement, K.’s mental health was very unstable and her psychiatric treatment was expected to have to be continued for four to five years. T., however, had expressed his hopes that K. and he could, together, take care of J. in the future. It was agreed that J. would stay at the children’s home and would visit T. from Thursdays until Saturdays, beginning from 28   August   1993. T. would visit J. on other days according to an agreement to be made with the children’s home in this respect. 40.     In the course of the custody and access dispute concerning P., a social worker had, on 8   May   1992, testified before the District Court ( kihlakunnanoikeus, häradsrätten) of S. that she had noticed nothing alarming in the applicants’ family situation, nor that the family conditions would have differed from those of “normal families” in any significant way. The social worker therefore considered K. suitable to bring up children, regardless of the fact that she had received treatment for mental illness. The social worker stated that K. had always kept her children “clean and healthy”. At least with the help of her mother and with some support measures it would be possible for K. to act as her children’s custodian. According to P.’s father, who also testified before the District Court, K. had shown paranoid features in her behaviour, alleging that “unknown people visited her home during her absence”. He also said that K. had dyed her hair as she had thought that her “double” had been seen in the neighbourhood and she wanted to be distinguishable from her double. Several witnesses testified that K. had recently been voluntarily placed at a mental hospital and was receiving medication for her mental illness. It was also said that P. was de facto living with her grandmother, who had the daily responsibility for her care. 41.     On 9   September   1993, the County Administrative Court confirmed the care order concerning J., considering that K. had been mentally ill; that the applicants had had conflicts “as a result of which T. had moved away from their home in the beginning of July   1993”; that because of K.’s illness and the family’s other problems the applicants had been unable to provide adequate care to J.; that the care support provided to the family had not sufficiently improved the family’s situation and that the measures could not be expected to satisfy J.’s care needs. No hearing was held. K. appealed against the decision. 42.     On 14   September   1993, the Social Welfare Board prolonged the access restriction until 15   December   1993. 43.     The following notes of a social welfare official appear among those in the case records of the Social Welfare Board: (translation from Finnish) “14   September   1993: 2 ... In addition, the importance of future access between J. and T. has now been questioned, since J.’s placement in [public foster care] is under preparation. It will be difficult for T. to give J. up, ... 13   October   1993: K. ... states that she is considering moving [back] together [with T.] when she is discharged from the hospital on 29   October. ...[Her] wish is that M. and J. would be placed in the same [foster] family. ... 18   October   1993: ... T. agrees to J.’s placement in a [foster] family. ... 25   October   1993: ... T. is slightly opposed to J.’s placement in a [foster] family. ... It is again explained [to him] why J. cannot live with him as long as [the applicants] continue their relationship. ... 26   October   1993: ... The essential issue from J.’s point of view is [the applicants’] internal relationship; if [it] continues, J. cannot stay at home with T. ... The alternatives are: J. comes back home to T. or is placed in [foster care]. ... [He] can provide the basic care and upbringing alone provided he receives certain support. ... 27   October   1993: ... The access between M. and K. have been successful now that T. has been attending [the visits]. ...” 29   October   1993 ... The father has been responsible for the care of the institutionalised child. He has been active and acted on his own initiative. He has fed, clothed and bathed the child. He has also taken care of the child’s outings and of the rocking the baby to sleep. The father has treated the child naturally and with consideration; he has talked a lot to the child and showed her tender emotions. He has enjoyed his time with the child and within the terms of the child. The father has treated the child patiently and with warmth, taking into consideration the needs of the child. The mother has visited the child five times and stayed only for a moment each time. ... J. has had a possibility to a regular interrelation with one person taking care of her, i.e., with her father. A safe relationship with the father has created to the child a feeling of basic safety, which acts as basis for positive development of her emotional life. J. has the necessary resources to grow up and to develop in order to be a healthy and well-balanced child. Taking into consideration the circumstances, the foundation for the family placement is good.” 44.     On 27   October   1993, K. was discharged from the hospital of H. 45.     On 11   November   1993, the County Administrative Court confirmed the care order concerning M., repeating the reasons put forward in its decision of 9   September   concerning J. No hearing was held. 46.     In their appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court ( korkein hallinto-oikeus, högsta förvaltningsdomstolen) against the confirmation of the public care order concerning M., the applicants were represented by the Public Legal Adviser ( yleinen oikeusavustaja, allmänna rättsbiträdet) of S. 47.     By decision of 21   January   1994 the Social Welfare Board placed J. in a foster home at the City of K., some 120 kilometres away from the applicants’ home. M. joined her on 7   February   1994. The foster parents had no children of their own. Social welfare officials told both the applicants and the foster parents that J.’s and M.’s placement would last “for years”. The applicants had proposed that the children’s public care be implemented in the homes of relatives. 48.     On 2   February   1994, the Social Welfare Board drew up a care plan concerning the implementation of the public care. The applicants’ alternative care plan was allegedly ignored. For instance, the children could not meet their maternal grandmother in her home. 49.     After the adoption of the care plan on 2   February   1994 the applicants requested that the access restriction be alleviated. For instance, T. had been permitted to see J. only once a month. 50.     On 21   March   1994, the applicants requested, inter alia, that the Social Welfare Board should draw up a public care plan aiming at the reunification of the family. 51.     On 3   May   1994, the social welfare authorities organised a meeting in order to revise the care plan of 2   February   1994. The applicants and their representative did not attend the meeting. 52.     On 17   May   1994, the Social Director restricted both applicants’ access to the children to one monthly visit at the foster home, where access was to take place under supervision during three hours. The Director considered that the grounds for public care still existed. He considered that, although the applicants were dissatisfied with the visits set out in the care plan, affording the children an unlimited right to see their parents would create an obstacle to their successful placement. The applicants appealed. 53.     On 26   May   1994, the applicants requested that the Social Welfare Board proceed to the revocation of the public care of M. and J. 54.     On 18   September   1994, the Social Director allegedly told the applicants that any further children born to them would also be placed in public care. According to the Government, the Social Director had only told them, when expressly asked, that it was possible that any further children born would be taken into public care. 55.     In an opinion of 22   September   1994 submitted at the Social Welfare Board’s request Dr K.P., a specialist in psychiatry, commented on the possibility of revoking the public care orders. She concluded that K.’s mental state would not prevent her from acting as the children’s custodian. According to Dr K.P., the struggle introduced by K. to have the care terminated and access restrictions loosened gave evidence of psychological resources. She noted, inter alia, that T. was K.’s closest support in the care and upbringing of the children. Also K.’s mother, at the time her guardian ad litem , was ready to help in caring for them. Dr K.P., however, added that she could not, as an adult psychiatrist, take any stand as regards the interests of the children. Dr K.P.’s opinion was also based on a report submitted by Dr K.Po., a psychologist, who had come to the same conclusion as regarded K.’s ability to act as her children’s custodian. 56.     On 23   September   1994, the Supreme Administrative Court extended the time for K.’s appeal against the confirmation of the care order made in respect of J. On the same day the Court rejected the appeal against the confirmation of the care order of 11   November   1993 concerning M. 57.     The Public Legal Adviser advised against lodging a request with a view to having the care orders revoked. 58.     On 28   September   1994, the County Administrative Court held an oral hearing concerning the access restriction imposed on 17   May   1994. It took evidence from two psychiatrists, who had interviewed K. One of them, Dr T.I.-E., did not know K. personally but commented on a diagnosis concerning her mental state by indicating that K. had a tendency to react in a psychotic manner to conflict situations. Dr K.P. stated that K.’s state of health did not prevent her from caring for her children. Consequently, if her illness had been the reason for the access restriction, that reason no longer existed. 59.     In a written expert opinion, requested by the Social Welfare Board and submitted to the County Administrative Court, Dr E.V., a child psychiatrist, was of the opinion that the children should be permanently cared for by the foster home and that the applicants’ visits should, for the time being, be prohibited so as to protect the children and the foster home. According to the applicants, Dr E.V. had not met any of the applicants or children, nor had he consulted with the other psychiatrists before making his proposal. 60.     On 11   October   1994, the County Administrative Court upheld the access restriction issued on 17   May   1994. It noted that neither of the witnesses who had been heard orally had been willing to state any opinion in regard to the children’s development. It reasoned, inter   alia, as follows: (translation from Finnish) “... [By allowing] access to take place once a month and [by allowing contact by virtue of correspondence] it will be ensured that the children will retain knowledge about their biological parents. If the grounds for the public care later cease to exist, a reunification of the family will thus be possible. ...” 61.     The County Administrative Court dismissed the applicants’ request for cost-free proceedings, since the relevant legislation did not cover disputes concerning access restrictions. At the Court’s hearing, the applicants were nevertheless assisted by Ms Suomela. 62.     On 18   October   1994, K. appealed against the care order in respect of J. as confirmed by the County Administrative Court on 9   September   1993. 63.     On 17   November   1994 social welfare officials revised the public care plan, proposing that the children meet the applicants once a month on neutral premises at the Family Advice Centre of K., where the foster parents were living. The applicants objected thereto, considering that this would have entailed a further restriction of their access to the children. Instead they requested two meetings a month, one of which was to be at their place of residence. On 22   December   1994, they demanded a separate written decision concerning their access request in order to enable them to appeal the same. 64.     In a letter of 22   December   1994 the Social Director informed the applicants that there were no longer any grounds for the access restriction. Meetings between the applicants and the children were nevertheless only authorised for three hours once a month on premises chosen by the Social Welfare Board. The meetings would also be supervised. 65.     In his decision of 11   January   1995 the Social Director confirmed that there were no longer grounds for the access restriction. On 31   January and 28   February   1995 the Social Welfare Board confirmed the decision of 11   January   1995. The applicants appealed. 66.     K. was hospitalised from 15 to 24   February and from 11   April to 29   May   1995, apparently on account of psychosis. 67.     On 14   March   1995 the Social Welfare Board rejected the applicants’ request of 26   May   1994 that the care order be revoked, stating as follows: (translation from Finnish) “At the moment the health situation of the children’s mother, K., is better and the family situation has changed also in other respects in comparison with the situation in 1993 when the decisions to take the children into care were made. ... According to Dr K.P., a specialist in psychiatry, K. still has “a lot of instability in her emotional life as well as fragility, brought by the last five years’ experiences and the diagnosis of mental illness for which she needs - still for a long time - therapeutic support and treatment. A regular medication is also needed in order to guarantee the continuation of her well-being and to make it possible for her to manage in open care and to act as a custodian of her children. Dr K.P., however, did not give her more precise opinion as to K.’s ability to take care of and bring up her children even though Dr K.P. was explicitly asked to give such an opinion. K. can act as the custodian of her children. She cannot, however, be responsible for the needs and education of the children - not even with the support of T. and the open care support measures. Their ability to act as educators taking care of the children’s needs is inadequate. According to the statement given by the children’s clinic of the municipality of K., the ability of K. and T. to understand the needs of the children and to respond to them is very limited. Even though T. is capable of interaction with the children, also he finds it difficult to respond to the needs of the children’s emotional life. K. is also incapable of creating an emotional relationship with the children. At an earlier stage, Dr J.H., a psychologist at the local health care centre, has reached the same conclusion in her statement given during the custody proceedings concerning K.’s oldest child. In his expert statement Dr E.V., a child and youth psychiatrist, reached a similar conclusion. Already in the spring of 1992 Dr J.H. realised that K.’s problem is related to the diminishment of the boundaries between her and her children. She stated that K. melts herself and her children into one entirety without being able to see the single and individual nature of the children. According to J.H., K. is also unable to take into account the children’s needs in accordance with their age. Dr E.V. finds that the children do not seem to be independent objects to K. but that she sees them as so-called “self-objects”. She finds it difficult to realise that children are love- and care-needing individual human beings. Instead, she sees as if they were meant for her own use only.” The applicants appealed on 5   April   1995, also requesting that they be granted cost-free proceedings and afforded free legal representation. They also requested an oral hearing. 68.     On 7   April   1995, a further child, R., was born to the applicants. Having given birth, K. was, on 13   April   1995, committed to compulsory psychiatric care and treated at the hospital of H. until 29   May   1995, while R. was being cared for by T. According to the observation of a specialist in psychiatry, dated 10   April   1995, K. “must have been suffering from paranoid schizophrenia for a longer time”. 69.     On 15   June   1995, the County Administrative Court granted the applicants cost-free proceedings and appointed Ms Suomela as their representative in the case concerning their appeal against the Social Welfare Board’s decision of 14   March   1995. It decided not to hold a hearing in respect of the applicants’ request for a revocation of the care orders. It provided the parties with an opportunity to supplement their written observations. 70.     As regards the applicants’ appeal against the Social Welfare Board’s decisions of 31   January   1995 and 28   February   1995, the County Administrative Court considered, on 15   June   1995, that the revised care plan drawn up on 17   November   1994 had already entailed an access restriction which had been renewed by new decisions later, without the applicants having been properly heard, in respect of their access request. The matter was referred back to the Social Welfare Board for new consideration. 71.     In the light of the County Administrative Court’s decision the Acting Social Director, on 28   June   1995, formally restricted the applicants’ access to the children to one meeting a month up to 31   May   1996. The meetings were to take place in the foster home. In addition, the foster parents were to visit the applicants with the children every six months. The Director considered, inter alia, that it was important that the children settle themselves in their growth environment in the foster family. Closer contacts with their parents would mean change and insecurity as well as the creation of a new crisis in their development. The process of settling which had started well would be jeopardised. For the children’s progress it was therefore necessary that their situation remain stable and secure. The Director’s decision was confirmed by the Social Welfare Board on 22   August   1995. The applicants appealed. 72.     With regard to the justification of the care order concerning J. the Supreme Administrative Court, on 21   August   1995, granted K. cost-free proceedings as from 1   March   1994 and appointed Ms   Suomela as her representative. It upheld the County Administrative Court’s decision of 9   September   1993. 73.     On 28   September   1995, the County Administrative Court rejected the applicants’ appeals of 5   April   1995 without holding an oral hearing. The Court noted, inter alia, that according to medical certificates, K.’s state of health had improved but her emotional life was still unstable. She therefore continued to be in need of psychotherapy and medication. In addition, a further child had been born to the applicants and K. had again been treated at the hospital of H. These two factors had caused an additional strain militating against a revocation of the care orders. 74.     On 3   November   1995, the County Administrative Court rejected the applicants’ appeal against the access restriction confirmed on 22   August   1995. 75.     On 25   May   1996, social welfare officials revised the public care plan, proposing that the children meet the applicants once a month in the premises of a school at the children’s place of residence. As the applicants were not present when the proposal was made, the care plan was again revised on 9   October   1996 insofar as the access restriction was concerned. The applicants then proposed that the children meet the applicants without supervision once a month. The public care plan was, however, revised as proposed by social welfare officials. 76.     On 17   June   1996, the Social Director restricted both applicants’ access to the children, until 30   November   1997, to one monthly visit in the premises of a school at the children’s place of residence, where access was to take place under supervision during thre