CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 13 avril 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s57F1263A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s88D564B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border:0.75pt solid #000000; padding:1pt 4pt } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD0A217A5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s91F6AE57 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s5847F61D { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:87.95pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7267E338 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:87.95pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD7D0356 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s793B3A59 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:60.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .s95770030 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s35008A5F { width:18.55pt; display:inline-block } .sAD92BA88 { width:125.76pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }     FIFTH SECTION CASE OF JÍROVÁ AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC (Application no. 66015/17)     JUDGMENT   Art 8 • Family life • Court-ordered prohibition on contact between former foster parents and their foster child who was removed from their care on the grounds of negative impact on the child’s psychological well-being • Domestic courts’ decision corresponded to child’s best interests, within their margin of appreciation and based on relevant and sufficient reasons   STRASBOURG 13 April 2023   FINAL   13/07/2023   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Jírová and Others v. the Czech Republic, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Georges Ravarani , President ,   Carlo Ranzoni,   Mārtiņš Mits,   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström,   Lado Chanturia,   Mattias Guyomar,   Kateřina Šimáčková , judges , and Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   66015/17) against the Czech Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by three Czech nationals, Ms   V. Jírová, Mr M. Jíra and Mr V. Bláha (“the applicants”), on 9 September 2017; the decision to give notice of the application to the Czech Government (“the Government”); the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 20 September 2022, 31 January and 14   March 2023, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns a court-ordered prohibition, allegedly in breach of Article 8 of the Convention, on contact between former foster parents (the first and second applicants) and their former foster child (the third applicant), following the latter’s removal from their care and his placement in institutional care at the age of 13, on the grounds of the foster parents’ negative impact on the child’s psychological well-being. THE FACTS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 2.     The applicants were born in 1958 (the first and second applicants) and 1998 (the third applicant). They live in Hodkovice nad Mohelkou. The applicants were represented by Mr D. Strupek, a lawyer practising in Prague. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr V.A. Schorm, of the Ministry of Justice. 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. Events preceding the proceedings prohibiting contact 5 .     The third applicant was placed in institutional care in 1999 at the age of one, in a situation where his father was not named in the birth certificate and his mother was unable to care for him. Since birth, he had been frequently hospitalised and had therefore required special care in view of his health condition. Following a court decision on the parents’ disinterest, the child was placed in the substitute family care system ( náhradní rodinná péče ), which includes adoption ( adopce ), fostering ( pěstountsví ) and guardianship ( poručnictví ). It appears, on the basis of the parties’ submissions, that the third applicant lost all contact with his mother and never had contact with his biological father. He also apparently has a sister, but the extent of their relationship remains unclear. In April 2004, at the age of six, he was placed, on the basis of an administrative decision, in the pre-foster care (so-called “ předpěstounská péče ”) of the first and second applicants. In September 2005 the foster care was confirmed by the Klatovy District Court ( okresní soud ) (see paragraph 11 below). The local social welfare authority ( orgán sociálně právní ochrany dětí ) informed the District Court each year of the situation in the foster family, both before and after its approval of the third applicant’s foster care. The third applicant remained with his foster parents until December 2011, at the age of 13. 6 .     A report of the counselling centre dated 30 June 2004, following the placement of the third applicant in the pre-foster care of the first and second applicants, stated, in particular, as follows: “Under our [preparation course curriculum], in some cases a part of the preparation [takes the form of] a consultation at the moment when the child is taken over by the family. Because during the preparation of [the first and second applicants], reasonable doubts arose as to the actual implementation of substitute parental care (parental inexperience, unrealistic expectations regarding education, problematic role models in their own childhoods, the personality traits of the [first applicant]), it was agreed that a consultation would be held with the clients at the time of their taking the child into the family. Given that [the first and second applicants]’ interest in taking care of a little girl – calm, of mild [temperament], around the age of three (a preference [also noted in] the conclusion of the expert assessment of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs of 29   January 2003) seemed to be the only optimal one, they were much encouraged. Nevertheless, at the beginning of April of this year, [the first and second applicants] [temporarily] took care of a six-year-old hyperactive boy. The [first and second applicants] did not engage in the agreed consultation at the counselling centre. Only [the second applicant] later came to the counselling centre (without the first applicant’s knowledge), when ... he was seriously considering returning the child.” 7 .     On 27 August 2004 the local social welfare authority expressed certain concerns regarding the provision of foster care by the first and second applicants: “[W]e cannot fail to draw the court’s attention to the fact that the entrusting [to the first and second applicants of the care] of a minor with [diagnosed mild brain dysfunction] is in direct conflict with the psychological assessment of the [first and second applicants] set out by the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs. Moreover, it appears from the report of the Liberec counselling centre ( Poradna pro rodinu a mezilidské vztahy ) [drawn up on 29 January 2003] that there are certain doubts about the implementation of [substitute parental care]. For these reasons, we recommend that the court order an expert report.” 8 .     The social welfare authority noted in its report of 14 January 2005: “As to the discrepancies in the [matching] of the child to suitable foster parents, we have already pointed this out to the court in a previous report. From our point of view, the conditions for the minor are good and the current stay, according to the facts ascertained so far, is benefitting the child.” 9 .     In its report drawn up on 17 June 2005, the social welfare authority wrote that: “Regarding the current ... situation, ... from [our] point of view, there are no reservations about the [the first and second applicants]’ care of the [third applicant]. ... Upon the [the third applicant]’s admission to the family, there ... were problems; the foster parents managed [to care for him] only with great effort. ... Today, the situation is completely different, the [first and second applicants] ... cooperate with [the third applicant], they know his specific needs [and] there have been established mutual emotional ties. ... [The third applicant] has been living within the family for more than a year and their care of him is good. It is therefore in his best interests for him to be entrusted to [the first and second applicants].” 10.     The social welfare authority noted in its report of 26 September 2005, shortly before the approval of the foster care by the court: “[The first and second applicants] demonstrated, during their pre-foster care [that is, before they officially assumed foster care duties], that they were able to take care of [the third applicant]. Entrustment to their joint foster care is entirely in the best interests of [the third applicant], [and] that is why we recommend it.” 11 .     On 29 September 2005 the District Court decided to entrust the third applicant to the foster care of the first and second applicants (see also paragraph 5 above). As it has already been mentioned above, the social welfare authority continued reporting the situation within the foster family to the court. While its assessment in February 2007 was that the first and second applicants’ provision of foster care was “without problems”, the reports drawn up in July 2008, September 2009 and October 2010 indicated some deficiencies in the foster care provided. The social welfare authority noted on 2 February 2007 that it had assessed the first and second applicants’ current care of the third applicant as unproblematic. A report, drawn up by the social welfare authority on 7 July 2008, contained the following assessment: “[The paediatrician stated that] the education [of the third applicant] is more complex in the light of his health problems. He is difficult to manage. She has no serious reservations in respect of the care [provided by] the foster parents. [The first and second applicants’ provision of] foster care, from our point of view, by no means give rise to no reservations. However, the shortcomings are not yet serious enough to call for its being terminated.” On 15 September 2009 the social welfare authority noted as follows: “From our point of view, the [the first and second applicants’ provision of] foster care by no means gives rise to no reservations. The foster parents often appear clueless in their upbringing [of the child]. During a home visit in March 2009, they even admitted that caring for [the third applicant] was very demanding and exhausting. On the other hand, the foster parents obtain, according to their abilities and possibilities, the necessary professional care for the minor during his free time. The shortcomings in the foster care are therefore not so serious as to call for the termination of the foster care.” A report of the social welfare authority dated 8 October 2010 contained similar conclusions. 12.     On 15 April 2011 a psychologist, having examined the first and second applicants in connection with their request that they be able to provide foster care to another child in addition to the third applicant, did not recommend them as suitable candidates for foster care. She nevertheless noted the following: “Given the fact that the [first and second applicants] already have one child in their care, and it is clear that they do their best for the boy (sometimes with all their might) I   recommend that social workers and experts in the Liberec region be helpful [towards the first and second applicants], [who] are indeed in need of guidance and assistance.” 13 .     On 3 November 2011 the third applicant had to be hospitalised owing to his behavioural and emotional disorders. During his hospitalisation, he underwent a psychological examination, the result of which was summarised as follows: “Adaptation disorder in a boy [aged 13 years and nine months] living in a foster family from the age of six. ... [A] boy with specific learning disabilities without significant attention deficit disorder. Hospitalisation was preceded by affective attacks [ afektivní záchvaty ] marked by aggression, especially towards the [first applicant]. [The third applicant] interprets them as being the result of his being bullied at [his] school owing to [his] poverty and poor material resources. He is clearly worried about staying in the current family; he is suspicious, spontaneously says how much he likes his foster parents; he emphasises their exemplary care and approach towards him; he invents [accounts of] what he has at home and what leisure activities he engages in ... In reality, he is considerably socially ... depressed and [deprived of stimulation], infantilised by the environment; his development is unbalanced. The family has failed to switch him to an education appropriate to his age; an overprotective approach [combined] with [the exertion of] maximum control persists – he does not have keys to the flat, he does not attend children’ clubs ... In the hospital, he has adapted well, being able to join a narrower group of peers and take part in regular activities [appropriate to] his age. ... The visits paid to him by the foster parents reveal a certain conflict on their part regarding the institutions [involved in his care] and a lack of understanding regarding the needs of an adolescent boy. Recommendation: Ensuring an educational and stimulating environment with adequate social standards enabling adequate development.” 14 .     On 8 December 2011 the Liberec District Court adopted an interim measure ordering the third applicant’s placement in a children’s diagnostic institution ( dětský diagnostický ústav ). As can be seen from the reasoning of the placement order, the court held that during his hospitalisation the third applicant’s problematic behaviour had been found to be largely caused by the care provided by the foster parents. It was noted that the third applicant had suffered from considerable social deprivation and lack of stimulation, had been infantilised by his environment and by how he had been treated, and his development had been unbalanced. The foster parents had favoured overprotectiveness combined with maximum degree of control. At the age of 13 the third applicant had not had his own keys to the flat, had had no access to a computer, had not been allowed to go out alone and had not been able to spend time with peers. He had lacked basic skills, such as telling the time. The court also referred to the first applicant’s psychological problems, which had had an adverse impact on the third applicant. It noted that the child’s life or health had not been at risk while he had been placed with the foster parents but that there was a risk of his psychological problems developing more in the future; however, the foster parents did not know how to deal with his problems or refused to do so. 15 .     On the basis of all the material in the case file, it appears that after December 2011 the third applicant no longer lived with the first and second applicants, who were not, however, affected by these measures in respect of their legal status as foster parents (see also paragraph 21 below). 16.     On 5 March 2012 the Ústí nad Labem Regional Court (Liberec branch) ( Krajský soud – pobočka ) upheld the interim measure ordered by the District Court. It stated, inter alia , that the District Court would initiate proceedings in which it would decide to whose care the third applicant would be entrusted. 17 .     In the meantime, on 21 February 2012, the third applicant had been placed in a children’s home ( dětský domov ). Three weeks later, on 15 March 2012, the Liberec District Court initiated proceedings on the placement of the third applicant in institutional care. 18 .     As regards contact during the period between February 2012 and January 2013, as it can be seen from the documents in the case file, the foster parents and the children’s home had agreed that the third applicant would spend time with the foster parents twice a week, every Wednesday from 2pm to 6pm and Saturday from 10am to 6pm. In January 2013 the visits were reduced to once every other week because the third applicant’s mental state and behaviour had worsened after the foster parents’ visits (as had his performance at school) and also because the educational recommendations ( výchovné postupy ) were not respected by the foster parents. Placement in institutional care and events regarding the prohibition on contact between the applicants 19 .     By an interim measure of 21 March 2013, under Article 102 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as then in force, the Liberec District Court, upon a request lodged by the children’s home on 19 March 2013, prohibited contact between the third applicant and his foster parents. The court stated, inter alia , the following: “The foster parents have the [third applicant] penned in; he himself says that he must lie to them because he does not want to ‘hurt’ them. The foster parents do not follow the rules; they call [the third applicant] several times a day on his private mobile telephone ..., they keep telling him what he should do, who he should be friends with, who he should not talk to, ... the foster parents took the boy away from a hobby club, etc. ... The [third applicant] feels great remorse because of the foster parents ... The court is convinced that this situation has a very negative influence on the [third applicant]’s development, and that this has been the case for a long time, ever since the [third applicant] started to behave aggressively, although repeated examinations by a psychologist showed that the child is not conflictual ... The foster parents keep him in a position of childish dependence, they do not allow him to gradually grow up on his own. That is apparent from the foster parents’ endeavours to turn the [third applicant] into a disabled person by applying for a second degree disability although in fact he does not need anything of the sort, ... and from the fact that, disregarding the expert report and the pending proceedings, the foster parents have not refrained from further influencing the [third applicant] contrary to his interests when they are complicating the [children’s home’s] activities by both instructing the boy what to do and cancelling activities in which he has been enrolled, and taking advantage of the boy’s dependence on them. The [third applicant] is again getting into a situation in which he responds aggressively and resorts to lies because there is obviously a conflict between his feelings and the foster parent’s wishes and he feels that he is ‘hurting’ them, for that is how it is presented to him by the foster parents. This conflict has a negative impact on his mind   ... While on the one hand the foster parents display how they care about the [third applicant], on the other hand they are obvious to the worsening of his mental state and do not try to help to calm the situation together with the [children’s home]; on the contrary, they boycott any activities of the [children’s home] aimed at helping the [third applicant], while taking advantage of the [third applicant’s] dependence.” 20.     On 17 April 2013 the District Court, upon a request lodged by the social welfare authority, decided to place the third applicant in institutional care. The court’s judgment effectively replaced the previous interim measure of 8 December 2011. The third applicant’s interests were represented by the Liberec Municipality ( Magistrát Města Liberce ). On 10 December 2013 the Regional Court, following an appeal by the first and second applicants, quashed the first-instance judgment of 17 April 2013 and remitted the case to the District Court. 21 .     In the meantime, on 15 August 2013, the Regional Court, following an appeal lodged by the first and second applicants, upheld the interim measure of 21 March 2013 prohibiting contact. The interests of the third applicant, who had been heard by the court on 9 April 2013, were represented by the Liberec Municipality, which considered that the prohibition on contact was in his interests and thus recommended that the preliminary measure be upheld. The court, after considering the content of the first and second applicants’ appeal, noted the following facts: “The foster parents and the minor are not in personal contact following the preliminary measure of the District Court of 8 December 2011 by which the minor was transferred to the care of the children’s diagnostic institution in Liberec and then to the care of the children’s home in Česká Lípa. The placement of the minor in the institution was preceded by the foster carers’ proposal that the minor be hospitalised for his behavioural disorders. The foster parents started working with a psychologist from the Counselling Centre for the Family and Interpersonal Relationships in Česká Lípa, with whom the foster parents continuously worked to address the educational and health problems of the minor. The psychologist confirmed the growing aggression of the minor in 2011. All the [aggression] and mental problems of the minor disappeared after he had been placed ... in the children’s diagnostic institution. The minor began acting independently, established relationships with other persons, engaged in hobbies and gained in self-confidence. The aggressive behaviour of [the minor] resumed after January 2013. Reports from his school, the children’s home and psychologists cooperating with the children’s home indicate that when a minor is under the influence of foster parents, his behaviour is different than when there is no contact with them. After meeting the foster parents, the minor feels remorse and thinks that his behaviour hurts the foster parents. Afterwards he is aggressive or has psychosomatic problems. The [third applicant’s] foster parents sought to contact the minor, even in violation of the children’s home’s instructions [that they not do so], were unable to solve problems together and sometimes many times a day tried to contact the minor and call him countless times. While the minor is in institutional care, contact with the foster parents evokes ... feelings of guilt [in him], he lies and cannot cope with the situation. It can be seen from the file of the District Court that since the prohibition on contact under the preliminary measure of 21 March 2013, the mental health of the minor has been improving again. According to a report by the clinical psychologist dated 8 April 2013, the restriction of contact with the foster parents is clearly beneficial for the minor ... The minor is happy, he joins in with the group in the children’s home, he has interests corresponding to his age, ... [and] the restriction of contact has had a positive effect in all areas of his life. A report by the director of the children’s home of 14 April 2013 demonstrates that following the prohibition on contact with the foster parents, the minor has calmed down and he does not try to contact them. A report by the [social welfare authority] drawn up on 15 April 2013 shows that following the restriction of contact with the foster parents, the minor no longer has somatic problems, joins in the activities in the children’s home and is happy.” The court concluded that it was necessary to order a temporary prohibition on all contact because the third applicant’s interest in his own sound mental development was directly threatened. It did not contest the existence of family life between the foster parents and the third applicant but, according to the court, it was necessary to create the conditions for remedying the disturbed family relations. It was in the third applicant’s best interests for contact between him and the foster parents to be prohibited, as that had a negative influence on him and was directly threatening his health. Concurrently, the court noted that both the courts and the social welfare authority would monitor the situation to see whether the reasons for the prohibition on contact were still present and whether over time a change in circumstances would not render the prohibition on contact a disproportionate measure leading to its withdrawal. 22.     On 14 January 2014 the District Court ordered a psychiatric examination of the applicants for the purposes of the proceedings on his continued placement in institutional care. 23 .     An expert opinion drawn up on 14 March 2014 stated that in 2009 the first applicant had experienced a short psychotic episode. She had not taken her prescribed medicines and had not undergone the outpatient psychiatric treatment that had been recommended to her. For a long time, she had been suffering from mixed personality disorder; she was emotionally immature, with a tendency towards anxiety, uncertainty and helplessness. In situations of emotional stress, her need to have things under control increased, and her impulsive behaviour and tendency to impose her opinions on others became more intense. According to the expert, her emotional processing of situations had begun to outweigh (including during the period of her caring for the third applicant) her rational assessment thereof. Moreover, the second applicant had a deeply set way of life, had trouble introducing new elements into his life and did not accept modern advances such as computers, television or mobile telephones. According to the expert, he gave the impression of being an ascetic type who was upset by modern lifestyle trends in society, and protected himself against them by escaping into his “proven stereotypes” ( únik do osvědčených stereotypů ). The third applicant did not have a mental illness in the proper meaning of the term and did not suffer from autism spectrum disorder, but did have a neurodevelopmental activity- and attention ‑ related disorder and a specific academic learning disorder. He was emotional in an immature and unstable way, and he had a reduced tolerance for emotional stress, weakened volitional characteristics, and a lack of social skills. The expert opinion also stated: “Owing to their own and the [third applicant]’s state of health, [the foster parents] are currently unable to personally take care of the [third applicant] in a manner that ensures his sound mental development, even if they were to be assisted by NGOs and associations ... The expert is convinced that the foster parents really did not understand and still have not understood the reservations ... of the State organisations. ... [T]hey both are fixated to the maximum extent on the minor. They have developed chronic feelings of bitterness, injustice, and misunderstanding and they have started a fight [to advance both] their own view and the position of the assisting organisations and specialists that the [third applicant] should be in their foster care and not in institutional care ... The expert is ... convinced that the foster parents did not have the strength to act otherwise in their efforts to [raise the third applicant] ... The expert is concerned that they are still unable to act otherwise ... She recommends, however, that the foster parents be allowed to have contact one afternoon per week ... On the other hand, the expert does not recommend that the [third applicant] have contact with NGOs and other specialists; she does not recommend bringing in any new specialists to deal with the [third applicant’s] mental state. If the time that he shares with the foster parents does not disturb the boy’s psychological development and if his behaviour does not deteriorate, after about three months contact could be extended to include the entire Saturday, rather than just [Saturday] afternoon, but without any sleepovers.” 24 .     On 7 April 2014 the Ombudsman ( veřejný ochránce práv ) drew up a report on an investigation into the situation regarding the foster family initiated by the first and second applicants on 1 February 2012. The report stated, inter alia : “The [Municipal] office erred when giving the family, in respect of which it could and should have anticipated an increased need for help and guidance, only the most necessary attention at the beginning of the cooperation (e.g. a visit to the household once every six months) ... In 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 the authority concerned repeatedly stated in its reports that the applicants’ care was not unproblematic, but that the deficiencies were not yet so serious that the Office would request its discontinuation. ... When working with the family, I [noted] to a significant degree] the absence of any preventive and advisory activities on the part of the authority concerned, which took over only an oversight function and regularly reported to the court information from those who came into contact with the family. ... There is no doubt that during the long-term upbringing provided by a substitute family ... relationships similar to those found in a biological family – especially strong emotional ties – develop between foster parents and children entrusted to them. In the present case, as there were no other relatives; ... the foster parents were the relatives to whom the minor was primarily attached, despite the foster parents’ educational deficiencies and the court decisions placing the minor in another educational environment ... He stated many times that his wish was to be in contact with the foster parents more often than was allowed by the children’ home. Given a situation in which the director of the children’s home considered that the contact between the applicants and the minor was adversely affecting [his] successful development, she turned to the court. ... Against the aforesaid background, I am of the opinion that the absolute detachment of the minor from the [foster parents] could be traumatising for him. ... In addition, I believe that the minor was not sufficiently informed of all the proceedings and matters that were essential for his future. I consider that the fact that [he] at the age of sixteen [did not have the opportunity to] verbally express himself regarding the intended measures (especially where they concerned further restrictions on his personal contact with the foster parents, when his attention was distracted only by his unfavourable somatic manifestations) constituted a failure in the social and legal protection of the ... minor.” 25 .     On 30 April 2014 the District Court held a hearing in the proceedings on the third applicant’s placement in institutional care. The representative of the foster parents submitted, for the court’s information, the report drawn up by the Ombudsman. The court heard the expert who had drawn up the expert report (see paragraph 23 above). She considered, inter alia , that the contact between the foster parents and the child should take place within the framework of systematic therapy under the supervision of a therapist. In a judgment adopted the same day, the District Court decided to place the third applicant in institutional care, to be exercised in the children’s home. It first admitted that his placement in foster care had not taken place in a standard way, the capabilities and requirements of the foster parents not having been sufficiently considered. The authorities had also not had sufficient regard to the psychological state of and possible educational complications for the child, who had already been educationally demanding at the time of the decision on foster care. The court next noted the deterioration of the third applicant’s health and his psychosomatic problems (including trouble with sleeping and abdominal pain) when being cared for by the foster parents. It took into consideration the expert opinion of 14 March 2014, which noted that when they had been feeling in need of help, the foster parents had contacted non-governmental organisations but that they had later limited the extent of their cooperation with those organisations. The court further noted that the foster parents did not respect the prohibition on contact that had been ordered, and also took into account the fact that the first applicant persistently disregarded psychiatrists’ recommendation that she undergo outpatient treatment. The court only briefly addressed the Ombudsman’s report, stating that the Ombudsman had found some shortcomings in the social welfare authority’s approach, namely insufficient social work with the family, failure to protect sibling relationships and failure to provide information to the child. The judgment did not address the issue regarding contact between the foster parents and the third applicant. The foster parents did not appeal against this judgment, which thus became final. 26 .     On 21 June 2014, the interim measure of 21 March 2013 prohibiting contact (see paragraph 19 above) was automatically lifted as consequence of the legal force of the judgment of 30 April 2014. The reasons for this decision have not been indicated by the parties. Accordingly, the prohibition on contact was suspended between 21 June 2014 and 15 December 2014, the date on which the District Court’s second interim measure of 9 October 2014 prohibiting all contact became final (see paragraph 31 below). 27.     On 18 September 2014 a working meeting was held in order to establish the rules for contact between the third applicant and his foster parents. The meeting was attended by fifteen people, including the foster parents and their legal representative, a clinical psychologist, a representative of the children’s diagnostic institution, representatives of the children’s home, representatives of the social welfare authority and representatives of two non-governmental organisations, K. and R. At the end of the meeting, it was decided to hold a new meeting at which the third applicant would also be present. It was agreed that the foster parents would attend the meeting with the representative of the NGO R. Moreover, representatives of the social welfare authority, the children’s diagnostic institution, and representatives and the director of the children’s home would also join the meeting. 28 .     The planned second meeting took place on 29 September 2014. Three reports on the course of the meeting, were drawn up respectively by the children’s diagnostic institution, the social welfare authority and the NGOs. According to the report drawn up by the children’s diagnostic institution, its representative asked the third applicant whether he wanted to call the foster parents back into the room. The third applicant refused and said that “he no longer wished to talk to the [foster parents]”. The foster parents and the representatives of the NGOs refused to step out of the way of the third applicant as he tried to leave, shouting at him that he was being abused and that he had changed. Upon returning to the children’s home the third applicant was visibly distressed and tense and quite clearly said that he no longer wished to see the foster parents. The report prepared by the social welfare authority gives a similar account of the course of the meeting as that contained in the report by the children’s diagnostic institution. The NGOs R. and K., with which the foster parents cooperated and whose representatives attended the meeting, submitted a report that criticised the behaviour of the employees of the social welfare authority and of the children’s home towards the foster parents, the representatives of the NGOs and the third applicant himself. 29 .     In their submissions to the Court, the applicants described the events of 29 September 2014 as follows: “The meeting took place on 29 September 2014 in Česká Lípa and ended up in a complete fiasco. The first and second applicants and their companions were exposed from the beginning to patronising and arrogant behaviour, and their companions (a social worker [from the NGO R.] and [Mr and Mrs K. – the managers of the NGO K.]) were denied [entry]. The third applicant was on the spot forced to react negatively, in that the whole team gathered around him and demanded that he confirm that he did not wish for the presence at the meeting of [Mr and Mrs K.] in particular. The third applicant was reluctant to react so explicitly; in the end, with his head bowed, he expressed his disagreement with one word; it clearly did not constitute a free expression [of his will]. Given those circumstances, the first applicant refused to attend the meeting, so personal contact between the applicants was not achieved.” 30 .     On 3 October 2014 the District Court instituted proceedings seeking a prohibition on contact between the applicants, and it appointed the Liberec Municipality ( Magistrát Města Liberce ) as guardian ad litem for that purpose in order to protect the interests of the third applicant, who was still a minor. 31 .     By a new interim measure of 9 October 2014, which became final on 15 December 2014, the District Court, on a proposal submitted by the social welfare authority on the same day, prohibited any contact between the foster parents and the third applicant, including in writing, in person and via mobile telephone or social media. At the same time, the court instituted proceedings seeking the termination of foster care. It held, inter alia : “The court is satisfied that once the [third applicant] had been placed in institutional care, the foster parents had an opportunity to rebuild a serene, pleasant and mutually beneficial relationship with [him], ... but they did not use it. It can be seen from the [third applicant’s] statements that during contact with him, ... they do not respect his current life situation [and] they ask him to choose between respecting [the wishes of] either them or the children’s home ..., which doubtless causes [him] psychological problems, distress, and anxiety, as in the past ... The child even avoids meeting the foster parents. The foster parents and the NGOs that assist them do not even respect the conclusions of the expert report to the effect that the [third applicant] should not be encountering [personnel from the] NGOs. ... The expert gave a positive assessment of the minor’s development in institutional care, which could not be said of his past development, which had led to mental problems and aggressive spells, and at the hearing she even voiced her opinion that contact should only take place within systematic therapy ..., but the foster parents did not accept this option. [T]he court concluded that it was in the interest of the minor ... for the interim measure to be granted and the foster parents be ordered to refrain from any contact with the minor, since the previous limitations on contact had not led to the foster parents reassessing their behaviour towards the minor and they had continued [behaving in the same manner]. It needs to be established, on the basis of further evidence, whether contact between the foster parents and the minor should be prohibited or whether the foster parents will accept the advice of the expert, ... and try to repair relations through systematic therapy – provided, however, that [the third applicant] wishes to maintain contact.” The court had at its disposal written observations on the matter submitted by the foster parents, but they remained disregarded in the court’s considerations that led to its decision. 32.     In respect of these events, in a handwritten text dated 14 October 2014, the third applicant wrote that his foster parents had observed him when on his way to ice hockey training; he had been approached by a certain Ms Š (apparently an acquaintance of the first and second applicants). He wrote similar statements on 15 and 16 October 2014. It appears from the first two statements that the third applicant was upset by having encountered Ms Š. In their observations submitted to the Court, the three applicants denied that the third applicant had been upset by the meeting with Ms Š. He had had nothing against her and had had no reason to overact in such a manner. In fact, the third applicant had only written the description at the request of the children’s home staff. The facts regarding this matter had not been ascertained, as the domestic courts had refused to hear Ms Š. as a witness. Moreover, the applicants maintained that the greetings and postcards that they had sent had been enclosed in envelopes addressed to the children’s home, not to the third applicant. They had left it to the discretion of the management of the children’s home to decide whether to hand them over to the third applicant or not. The text on the postcards had contained only neutral greetings. 33 .     On 1 December 2014 the Regional Court, following an appeal lodged by the first and second applicants, upheld the interim measure ordered by the District Court deeming it proven that the third applicant had developed serious mental problems while in foster care. The foster parents submitted their extensive written comments on the matter, which were, however, not reflected in the court’s considerations that led to its decision. The Regional Court stated, in particular: “During the foster care, [the third applicant] developed serious mental health problems, as a result of which he was repeatedly hospitalised ... in 2009 and 2011. ... [His] mental state ... was flagged as highly risky, and these health problems repeatedly appear after contact with his foster parents, who call him several times a day [and] tell him constantly what he has to do; they do not give him [his own] room in which to become independent, keeping him in a state of childhood dependence. Although [the third applicant] likes his foster parents, this manipulative tendency of the foster parents deepens his dependence and devastates his mental state. The submitted documents certify that the above-mentioned manipulative behaviour on the part of the foster parents towards the minor did not change, even after [the third applicant had been placed in institutional care on the basis of] the decision of the Liberec District Court of 30 April 2014, which became final on 21 June 2014. [These documents are] the record [made by] the social worker ... and psychologist ... of the course of [the third applicant]’s meeting with the foster parents on 29 September 2014[, and] the reports by his class teacher and the children’s home dated 8 October 2014. At the beginning of the meeting ..., the [third applicant] was calm until the arrival of the foster parents, who came with three employees of the NGO ..., who did not want to respect the fact that they had not been invited to the meeting. They caused a stressful situation for the minor [by asking him to tell them face-to-face] ... whether he wished to talk to them, which he eventually refused to do. The foster mother reacted aggressively by throwing grapes and letters onto the table in front of the [third applicant] and saying that if he did not wish [to talk to them,] then they would not talk to him either, and exited to the hallway. After that, the [third applicant] refused to talk to the foster parents. They, together with the staff from the [NGO], refused to clear a path for the [third applicant] so that he could leave and ... [indicated that t