CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 juin 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 30 June 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 21064/23 Yvonne Renate VAN DIJK against the Netherlands lodged on 17 May 2023 communicated on 11 June 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the decision to terminate the applicant’s parental authority ( ouderlijke macht ) of her son. In April 2016 the children’s judge issued a supervision order ( ondertoezichtstelling ) and an emergency care order ( spoeduithuisplaatsing ) placing the applicant’s seven-year-old son in foster care following the applicant’s allegedly disproportionate response to an incident at her son’s school. The children’s judge considered that an investigation was needed into the family situation of the child. In foster care the applicant’s son showed delayed development. Further investigations were required to determine appropriate treatment. Both orders were extended. According to the care providers, the applicant refused to cooperate with investigations of her son’s needs, whereas the applicant indicated that she did agree to a specific type of investigation. A 2017 psychological report showed that the applicant’s son had inadequate development and the applicant could not offer the parenting her son needed. The applicant contested these findings. In 2021 the Regional Court granted the childcare authorities’ request to terminate the applicant’s parental authority. The court considered that, after years, the necessary assistance for the child had not been provided because it was still unclear what the child’s needs were exactly, and that a major obstacle was the lack of cooperation between the mother and the care providers. It believed the mother had lost sight of the child’s interests, as a result of which the child’s development was seriously threatened. The court also found that the acceptable term ( aanvaardbare termijn ) for the child to cope with uncertainties regarding his family situation had expired, noting that the child lived for almost five years with the foster family. The decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 17 March 2022. In addition to the consideration of the first-instance court, it noted, inter alia, that the authorities had been unable to work towards family reunification because all attention and energy over the years had gone to the dispute between the mother and the childcare providers. In weighing the interests at stake, the court concluded that termination of parental authority was in the child’s best interest. This decision became final by judgment of the Supreme Court of 20   January 2023. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that no efforts were made to reunite her with her son after he was placed into foster care and that she was wrongly held responsible for delayed treatment of her son, while the passage of time had been relied on to justify the termination of her parental authority. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the decision to terminate the applicant’s parental authority over her son constitute a violation of her right to respect for her family life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention (see Strand Lobben and Others v.   Norway   [GC], no.   37283/13, §§ 202-213, 10 September 2019)?