Communicated on 28 June 2017

FIFTH SECTION

Application no 53487/13 R.M. against Latvia lodged on 12 August 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1 . The applicant is a Latvian national, who was born in 1964 and lives in Bauskas Novads. Her son N.M. was born in 2000. The father ceased living with the family when the child was three years old.

The substance of the case as submitted by the applicant can be summarised as follows.

The circumstances of the case

1. Suspension of the applicant ’ s parental authority

2 . O n 26 February 2013 the director of the Bauska Guardianship Institution suspended the applicant ’ s parental authority of her son N.M. and on 12 March 2013 the Vecumnieki Guardianship Institution decided not to restore the applicant ’ s parental authority, to deprive the applicant of her contact rights, to place N.M. in a long-term social care and social rehabilitation institution, and to provide him with social rehabilitation. These decisions were later upheld by both levels of administrative courts (fi nal decision adopted on 3 March 2014).

3 . The domestic authorities in their decisions relied on the prolonged, complicated situation in the family and the indications of a possible physical and emotional violence towards the child. One such event took place late at night on 25 February 2013 when the applicant and her son had a dispute, following which N.M. ran away from home because the applicant had allegedly kicked and scratched him. He was picked up by the police and admitted to medical examination after which N.M. attempted to flee from the hospital and to run back to the applicant. N.M. got lost and was taken back to the hospital by the police. He then behaved demonstratively by trying to strangle himself. Letters and text messages from the applicant encouraging N.M. to run away were later found.

4 . Following these events, criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant for cruel treatment of a minor. The proceedings were later terminated for the absence of actus reus .

5 . Between 12 March 2013 and 15 May 2013 N.M. was staying in different child-care institutions despite his wish to continue living with his mother and his continued attempts to run away.

6 . Following alleged violent treatment of N.M. by personnel at one of child-care centres , on 15 May 2013 the applicant took her son to a hospital and afterwards started hiding him from the authorities. The criminal proceedings instituted with regard to the alleged ill-treatment of N.M. at the child-care centre were later terminated as ill-founded.

7 . On 17 May 2013 the Cesis police department started searching for N.M. Criminal proceedings against the applicant were instituted for her failure to comply with the Vecumnieki Guardianship Institution ’ s decision concerning parental authority.

8 . On 24 September 2013 the police found N.M. in the applicant ’ s usual place of residence and placed him in a child-care institution but after the applicant ’ s visit he again ran away from t he institution. Since 4 October 2013 N.M. lived in hiding. Criminal proceedings against the applicant were instituted for the abduction of her child and the police started a search for N.M.

9 . In April, May and July 2014 the police attempted to intercept N.M. and take him to his father whose parental authority had been re ‑ established by the guardianship authorities in October 2013. On all occasions N.M. ran away from his father back to the applicant.

10 . On 16 May 2014 the Vecumnieki Guardianship Institution decided not to renew the applicant ’ s parental authority. It noted that N.M. ’ s whereabouts were still not known and that the applicant was intentionally aggravating her son ’ s living conditions by hiding him over a prolonged period of time and by not ensuring his basic needs. It described the applicant ’ s conduct as cruel treatment of her child. With this prolonged hiding the applicant was subjecting her son to psycho-emotional violence, as sooner or later he would be taken from her by police, which would be an unnecessary and traumatising event for N.M. The Vecumnieki Guardianship Institution also noted that the applicant did not cooperate with the social services; criminal proceedings had been instituted against her (at that point they were still on-going); she had lied for a prolonged period of time alleging that she was unaware of N.M. ’ s whereabouts (during the meeting with the guardianship institution the applicant had conceded that N.M. was under her care); she did not ensure proper health care to N.M.; and she subjected him to psycho-emotional violence preventing him from leading a normal life in society.

2. Assessment of the applicant ’ s family situation and the psychological assessment of N.M. and the applicant

11 . At the request of authorities, in 2013 and 2014 several psychological and psychiatric assessments of N.M. and the applicant had been carried out. The reports were used by the guardianship authorities and the administrative court in the proceedings to suspend the applicant ’ s parental authority.

12 . The forensic psychological and psychiatric evaluation of N.M., carried out on 26 April 2013, disclosed that N.M. was emotionally dependent on his mother and due to his infantilism wished to remain in her care. He had adjustment disorders and behaviour and emotional disorders connected with a negative puberty phase and atypical upbringing in the family. Considering these peculiarities, N.M. was not capable of adequately assessing the conduct of his mother. He was very easily influenced by her and could uncritically mimic her behaviour. A presence of indicators which was characteristic to children who had suffered from emotional and physical violence was established.

13 . The report of 11 July 2013 by psychologist I. L. disclosed that the applicant ’ s relationship with her son showed mixed-up roles; insufficient ability to understand the needs of her child and to take his interests into account, to create attachment, to ensure order and predictability in her child ’ s life; and that there was a risk of a cold-hearted, cruel attitude and aggressiveness.

14 . Another report of 24 July 2013 by psychologist I.P. stated that the applicant ’ s alleged negative attitude towards the specialists had not been confirmed. The applicant understood the peculiarities of her son ’ s age group and had knowledge on the questions of child care and discipline. It was also noted that in order to assess whether the applicant ’ s psycho-emotional status affected her son negatively, they would need to be observed together.

15 . In March 2014 psychologist M.Z., following a consultation with N.M., issued a document attesting that during this consultation N.M. had indicated that he desired peace and that he wished to live with his mother at his current place of residence in Bauska. The document also noted that this opinion had been expressed without the applicant ’ s presence.

3. N.M. ’ s education

16 . During the 2013/2014 school year N.M. followed online studies in a distance learning school. Following an inspection that was organised by the State Education Quality Service, at the end of the school year N.M. had been expelled from this school on the grounds that the applicant had provided untruthful information to enrol the child in school. The State authorities annulled the study attestation and the decisions to transfer him to the next grade.

17 . In May 2014 the Liepa Secondary School informed the Vecumnieki Guardianship Institution that in the school year 2013/2014 N.M. had not attended the school and that it had no information about the child ’ s whereabouts.

18 . On 24 July 2014 the State Education Quality Service wrote to the Ministry of Welfare concerning the cancellation of N.M. ’ s attestation, explaining that the initial issuing of this attestation had been unlawful. The decision concerning N.M. ’ s transfer to the next grade had to be taken by the school in which he was registered; that school could take into account the knowledge N.M. had acquired in the Riga Distance Learning Secondary School.

19 . In August and September 2014 the Bauska Music School wrote to the applicant that N.M. ’ s possibilities to continue attending the music school would be examined once she submitted a document showing that she was N.M. ’ s legal guardian.

20 . On 22 August 2014 the Bauska, Vecumnieki and Riga guardianship institutions organised a meeting about the situation and the fact that N.M. was being provided with no education for the second study year.

21 . On 9 October 2014 the distance learning secondary school “Riga Commercial School” wrote to the Vecumnieki Guardianship Institution attesting that N.M. was admitted there for the school year 2014/2015 and that his knowledge was compatible with this grade.

22 . On 13 October 2014 the Bauska Social Services wrote a letter to the Bauska, Vecumnieki and Riga Guardianship Institutions emphasising that N.M. ’ s right to education was still not being ensured. His studies in the distance learning secondary school “Riga Commercial School” were not considered legal, his father failed to register him in any school, and the guardianship institutions were taking no action to resolve this situation.

4. The suggestions to renew the applicant ’ s parental authority

23 . On 23 September 2014 the director of the Vecumnieki Guardianship Institution met N.M. in order to attain his opinion about the situation. The director later testified to the police that she had not informed them about N.M. ’ s whereabouts, even though it was contrary to the decisions of the guardianship institution, as she considered that it served the best interests of the child. N.M. had been in a good mood and had stated that he had a very good relationship with his mother.

24 . On 23 September 2014 the Bauska Social Services wrote a letter to the Vecumnieki Guardianship Institution, the State Inspectorate for Protection of Children ’ s Rights and the Ministry of Welfare. This letter noted that the employees of the social services had met up with the applicant several times and had also heard N.M. It had also gathered information from numerous involved institutions (the Vecumnieki Guardianship Institution, their special guardian who had been appointed to N.M., the Vecumnieki Social Services ’ psychologist, the principal of the Riga Distance Learning Secondary School, the State Education Quality Service, the State Inspectorate for Protection of Children ’ s Rights and the police). All institutions, as well as the applicant and N.M., agreed that N.M. ’ s rights to education were not being ensured.

25 . The letter stated that it was inappropriate to blame the applicant for failing to comply with the decision suspending her parental authority, as the institutions had also failed to comply with it over the period of 18 months. N.M. who had already turned 14 had repeatedly expressed his wish to live together with his mother and to attend school and music school.

26 . The social services further considered that even though the initial decision to suspend the applicant ’ s parental authority had been well-intended, it had not served the interests of the child. On the contrary, it had been the child who had suffered most from the decision to suspend his mother ’ s parental authority – he had been facing violent separation from his mother by the police. The child was taken to different institutions, he was deprived of education, ability to live in his family and at home, to attend music school, etc. The social services also attested that the living conditions at N.M. ’ s current place of residence were very good and suitable for the child. He had been registered with a family doctor and had received the compulsory vaccinations appropriate to his age. In a phone conversation the family doctor had emphasised the stress both the mother and child had been required to undergo.

27 . It also noted that in the meantime N.M. ’ s father had not exercised his right to provide for the child in any manner. The applicant had cared for the child since May 2013 and had a plan as to what to do when the parental authority would be restored – she considered that N.M. could continue his studies in the distance-learning school, continue following studies in a music school, etc.

5. Renewal of the applicant ’ s parental authority

28 . On 4 Novemb er 2014 the Bauska Guardianship Institution renewed the applicant ’ s parental authority. It concluded that the applicant now cooperated with the Bauska Social Services and that all the involved persons recognised that in the current circumstances the child ’ s right to education was not being ensured. It further continued by reiterating the reasoning of the Bauska Social Services ’ letter of 23 September 2014. The Bauska Guardianship Institution also observed that N.M. ’ s father had expressed an opinion that the applicant ’ s parental authority should not be renewed but at the same time he had not shown any readiness to take care of his child. According to him, the best solution would be if N.M. lived in a crisis centre. Finally, the guardianship institution noted that N.M. persistently expressed a desire to live with his mother. Accordingly, it concluded that the reasons for suspending the applicant ’ s parental authority had ceased to exist.

29 . On 16 February 2015 the Bauska Social Services informed the Bauska Guardianship Institution about the ongoing cooperation with the applicant. It attested that N.M. ’ s rights and interests were being provided for.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that by suspending her parental authority over her child N.M. the authorities had violated the applicant ’ s and N.M. ’ s right to respect for their family life.

She also complains that as a result of the above measures her child N.M. was denied the right to education contrary to Article 2 of Protocol No.1.

QUESTION S

1. 1. Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s and her son ’ s right to respect for their private and family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?

The Government might wish to include their comments on, inter alia , the following aspects: (i) Following the incident of February 2013 after which the applicant ’ s contact rights with her son were suspended, did the domestic authorities consider applying any less restrictive measures? (ii) W hat measures were taken to ensure that the best interests of N.M. were ensured during the period when he lived in hiding together with the applicant?

2. Has the applicant ’ s son N.M. been denied the right to education, guaranteed by Article 2 of Protocol No. 1? What were the steps taken by the authorities, if any, to ensure N.M. ’ s continued education during the period when the child was in the actual care of the applicant?