Published on June 16, 2008
Removal of children for housing reasons
Removal of children for housing reasons
The Defender found serious maladministration in the procedure of the body of social and legal protection of children (ASLPC), both in connection with filing a motion for ordering a preliminary injunction and in deciding on the awarding of children to pre-foster care. The Defender’s opinion is that in a situation where the mother had advised the ASLPC of her decision to deal with her adverse housing situation by moving to her parents, the motion for preliminary injunction removing the child from the mother should no longer have been filed. The Defender furthermore stated that the ASLPC had exceeded its powers when issuing a “confirmation” for the hospital personnel not to release the children into their parents’ care without consent from the ASLPC. The medical personnel then illegally refused to surrender the children to their mother and thus prevented her from leaving with the children to their grandparents in Slovakia. The Defender furthermore finds maladministration in awarding the children to pre-foster care as the situation in the family had been so stabilised at the time of issuing the decision that it would have been appropriate to negotiate return of the children to the family. The children’s contact with the parents was interrupted in the subsequent pre-foster care. The Defender attributes the situation occurring to poor preparation of the pre-foster care and insufficient guidance of the foster parents by the ASLPC. The Defender awaits a statement of the authority on the ascertained maladministration and will consider further procedure.
Removal of children for housing reasons
The Defender found serious maladministration in the procedure of the body of social and legal protection of children (ASLPC), both in connection with filing a motion for ordering a preliminary injunction and in deciding on the awarding of children to pre-foster care. The Defender’s opinion is that in a situation where the mother had advised the ASLPC of her decision to deal with her adverse housing situation by moving to her parents, the motion for preliminary injunction removing the child from the mother should no longer have been filed. The Defender furthermore stated that the ASLPC had exceeded its powers when issuing a “confirmation” for the hospital personnel not to release the children into their parents’ care without consent from the ASLPC. The medical personnel then illegally refused to surrender the children to their mother and thus prevented her from leaving with the children to their grandparents in Slovakia. The Defender furthermore finds maladministration in awarding the children to pre-foster care as the situation in the family had been so stabilised at the time of issuing the decision that it would have been appropriate to negotiate return of the children to the family. The children’s contact with the parents was interrupted in the subsequent pre-foster care. The Defender attributes the situation occurring to poor preparation of the pre-foster care and insufficient guidance of the foster parents by the ASLPC. The Defender awaits a statement of the authority on the ascertained maladministration and will consider further procedure.