CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 avril 2026

.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 27 April 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 30998/25 C.J.N. and J.C.R. against Spain lodged on 1 October 2025 communicated on 11 April 2026 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants are the biological mother and father of three girls born in 2016, 2018 and 2020. The application concerns the lack of contact rights between the applicants and their daughters, as well as among the siblings, following the placement of the children in temporary foster care. In April and May 2020 the Valencian Community Government (GVA) declared a situation of abandonment of the three daughters, agreeing to place them under the guardianship of the GVA and in temporary foster care with a family. The two eldest daughters were placed in the same foster home, and the youngest was placed in a different one. No contact arrangements with the biological parents were put in place, nor among the siblings. The decisions were based, inter alia, on the mother’s mental disability, the father’s failure to recognise the mother’s condition, and their lack of cooperation with social services. It appears that at some point criminal proceedings were lodged against the father on charges of sexual abuse. The applicants challenged the declaration of abandonment in justice, alternatively asking to be granted contact rights. Their request was dismissed. Throughout 2020 the applicants requested contact rights on several occasions. On 20 October 2020 the GVA issued a separate decision in respect of each girl dismissing their request, stating that it was not in the best interests of the children to establish contact rights with their parents, since the protection plan adopted in their regard aimed at integrating them into an alternative family unit. The applicants did not challenge these decisions. On 28 March 2022 the applicants requested again visiting rights in regard to their daughters. On 25 April 2022 the GVA replied in the negative, by referring to the previous decisions of 20 October 2020. The applicants lodged a judicial claim, arguing a violation of their right to respect for their family life, with regard both to the right of parents and daughters to maintain personal relationships as well as to the right of the two eldest daughters to maintain relationships with the youngest and vice versa; and also requesting the establishment of a visiting arrangement enabling both parents to have contact with the three children at the same time. The Castellón First Instance Court no. 9 dismissed the claim, stating that the contested document of 25 April 2022 simply pointed to the fact that the denial of visiting rights had been addressed by the decisions of October 2020 which had not been challenged. The court did not rule on the merits of the case. The applicants lodged an appeal with the Audiencia Provincial , which was dismissed. The court noted that the applicants had not alleged any change in circumstances since the visits had been denied. They subsequently lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court which was also dismissed. The Constitutional Court declared the amparo appeal inadmissible due to lack of constitutional significance. The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention that the domestic authorities’ decisions not to allow visiting rights between them and their daughters, as well as among the siblings, were not justified. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants   exhausted   all domestic remedies in respect of their grievances under Article 8 of the Convention, as required by Article 35 § 1?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their family life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, were there relevant and sufficient reasons provided by the authorities for their decisions to deny the applicants contact rights? Was that decision necessary in a democratic society? Was it proportionate and taken in the best interests of the children, especially in view of the fact that the children were placed in different foster homes and apparently no arrangements were put in place to secure contacts among them (see   Haddad v. Spain , no. 16572/17, §§ 65–66 and 73, 18   June 2019 and Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway [GC], no.   37283/13, §   205, 10   September 2019)?   3.     Can the applicants be considered as having complained not only personally but also on behalf of their three children? If so, do the applicants have standing to act on behalf of their daughters (see, in particular, Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 138-39 ECHR 2000 ‑ VIII, Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway [GC], no. 37283/13, § 157, 10   September 2019; and Roengkasettakorn Eriksson v.   Sweden , no.   21574/16, § 61, 19 May 2022)?   The parties are requested to submit updated information concerning the current situation of the applicants and their children, in particular any developments regarding their guardianship and/or custody, including relevant documents.   The parties are also requested to submit a copy of:   (i) all relevant administrative and judicial decisions concerning the declaration of abandonment, as well as the relevant claims and appeals lodged by the applicants in this regard;   (ii) all relevant judicial decisions concerning the criminal proceedings before the Castellón Investigating Court no. 3.