Information Note on the Court’s case-law 211
October 2017
Achim v. Romania - 45959/11
Judgment 24.10.2017 [Section IV]
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for family life
Temporary placement of children in care owing to family’s lack of means and parental neglect:no violation
Facts – Following an inquiry conducted by the social services and the lack of action on their recommendations, the Roma applicants’ seven children were taken into care on account of their insecure material living conditions and the parents’ failure to provide them with adequate healthcare and education.
Law – Article 8: The temporary placement of the applicants’ seven children in care, the prolongation of the measure and the withdrawal of the applicants’ parental authority over all their children amounted to an interference with the applicants’ exercise of their right to respect for their family life. That interference was in accordance with the law and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights and freedoms of others.
(a) The placement in care of the applicants’ children and the maintenance of that measure – The domestic courts found that the applicants had not provided their children with appropriate material living conditions, that they had neglected their state of health and educational and social development and had failed to cooperate with the social services.
Before proposing the children’s placement in care the social services assessed the family’s situation, identifying its material deficits and then differentiating them from the applicants’ parental shortcomings. They issued recommendations to be followed by the applicants in order to prevent their children from suffering any neglect. Regular monitoring of the applicant’s family was then put in place. The inquiry was extended to their entourage and the reports submitted were not based exclusively on the findings of the social services and their interactions with the applicants. In view of the lack of cooperation from the parents, the authorities found it difficult to monitor the situation of the children and to provide them with the requisite support. In view of the applicants’ failure to take any practical action and to cooperate with the authorities, the court ordered the emergency placement of the children, followed by a temporary placement order.
The domestic courts did not solely base their decisions to order the children’s temporary placement on the findings regarding the applicants’ material shortcomings. In those conditions, and in the best interests of the children, the temporary placement order could not be criticised under Article 8 of the Convention.
The court of appeal upheld the temporary placement order, still in the best interests of the children, while the applicants were showing signs of improving their material living conditions and had begun to cooperate with the authorities. Having assessed all the facts submitted and compared the family’s situation when the children had been placed in care with the applicants’ situation when the case was examined, as regards both their material living conditions and the developing relations between the applicants and their children and their cooperation with the social services, the court found a clear improvement in the applicants’ material living conditions, although it considered that the applicants had not yet followed all the recommendations of the social services and that their conduct did not yet suggest that they were shouldering their responsibilities in terms of raising their children in a completely safe environment.
That being the case, both the social services and the domestic courts were concerned not only about improving the family’s material living conditions but also about the applicants’ awareness of the role they should be playing as parents. Consequently, maintaining the placement measure was justified by “relevant and sufficient” reasons.
(b) Measures taken to reunite the family – The order issued in the present case was aimed at providing temporary care for the applicants’ children. Moreover, the six eldest children were all placed together in the same care centre in order to preserve their family relationship. On the grounds of his age, the youngest child was placed with a childminder, in accordance with the applicable legal provisions. It appears from the case file that the children’s development and state of health improved during their placement and that their situation was closely and frequently monitored by the social services.
The domestic authorities had taken the requisite action to ensure that the applicants could visit their children every month and that the visits could take place in an atmosphere conducive to the development of the family relationships. Telephone contact was also maintained. Finally, the social services carefully prepared the children’s return to their parents by organising a meeting of the youngest child with his brothers and sisters and his parents. Similarly, they allowed the eldest children to spend their holidays with the family. The authorities had thus consistently and genuinely endeavoured to preserve relations between the children and their parents.
The social services strove to monitor the applicants’ situation and advise them on how to improve their financial situation and parenting skills.
As soon as the applicants had shown a willingness to cooperate with the authorities and the first signs of an improvement in their situation had emerged, practical measures were quickly adopted to meet the conditions laid down by the social services for the children’s return. Under those circumstances, the authorities had taken all the action which could reasonably have been expected of them to facilitate the children’s return to the applicants.
Therefore, the applicants’ children’s temporary placement had been ordered for reasons which were not only relevant but also sufficient. Similarly, the placement measure had, right from the outset, been imposed on a temporary basis. By closely monitoring the children’s and the applicants’ situations the competent authorities had steadfastly pursued the aim of safeguarding the children’s best interests, while at the same time seeking a fair balance between the applicants’ and the children’s rights. Consequently, the interference with the applicants’ right had been “necessary in a democratic society”.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
(See also K. and T. v. Finland [GC], 25702/94, 12 July 2001, Information Note 32; Saviny v. Ukraine, 39948/06, 18 December 2008, Information Note 114; and Soares de Melo v. Portugal, 72850/14, 16 February 2016, Information Note 193)
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy