CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 août 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Communicated on 31 August 2020 Published on 21 September 2020   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 45644/18 Nathalie Sugandhi Sumithra VAN SLOOTEN against the Netherlands lodged on 21 September 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the decision to divest the applicant of her parental authority ( ouderlijke macht ) over her daughter, who had been born in August 2014. That decision was taken by a Regional Court on 6 June 2017, some 1,5 years after the child had been taken into care in October 2015. The applicant’s daughter has been staying with the same foster family since November 2015. After an examination of the specific facts and circumstances of the case, the Regional Court concluded that the period of time within which it was acceptable for the applicant’s daughter to live in uncertainty about where she would grow up and within which the applicant should once more be considered capable to bear responsibility for her daughter’s care and upbringing had expired. It considered that divesting the applicant of parental authority was in the child’s best interest in order to safeguard the stability and continuity of the situation in which the latter was being brought up. The applicant’s request for an independent body to conduct an investigation into her parenting skills with a view to her daughter being reunited with her was held not to be in the interest of the child and was therefore rejected. The Regional Court appointed a certified child-protection organisation as the child’s guardian. This decision was upheld by a Court of Appeal on 27 March 2018.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the decision to divest the applicant of her parental authority over her daughter constitute a violation of her right to respect for her family life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention?   2a.     What measures were taken to facilitate family reunification of the applicant and her daughter after the latter had been taken into care (see, amongst other authorities, Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway [GC], no.   37283/13, § 205, 10 September 2019)? 2b.     When, why and by whom was it decided that no further efforts aimed at returning the applicant’s daughter to her mother were to be made?