Published on 6 February 2023

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 53790/22 A against Slovenia lodged on 9 November 2022 communicated on 18 January 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the applicant’s placement in an institutional care and her lack of contact with her father. Her mother left her husband (the applicant’s father) at the beginning of April 2022 due to, inter alia , an alleged abuse. On 29 April 2022 a district court issued an interim care order for the parents to alternate weeks with the applicant and her two siblings (younger brother and sister). On 3 June 2022, the applicant and her brother, who were to be picked up from their school by their mother, run away prompting a police search. They were found the next day. On 7 June 2022 the father asked for a new order submitting that the applicant and her brother refused to go to their mother and asked for special guardian to be appointed for the children. On 21 June 2022 the welfare authority issued a report finding, inter alia , that there was an indication that the father tried to alienate the children from their mother and a suspicion that he was emotionally abusing the applicant and had organised the children’s runaway. On 28 June 2022 the district court issued a new care order temporary prohibiting contact between the father and the children. The children were placed in the sole care of the mother. On 17 August 2022 the district court dismissed the applicant’s father objection against the order. On 31 August 2022 the welfare authority issued a report noting that the applicant’s father respected the court decisions and cooperated with the authorities and that the children had re-built their relationship with their mother and stopped running away. It also noted that the children wished to have contact with their father and proposed that such contact be carried out under supervision. On 6 September 2022 a court order was issued accordingly. After that, the children again run away from the mother. Following this and the welfare authorities’ report noting that the mother who temporarily stayed with the children in a safe house had not exhibited adequate parenting competencies, the district court decided, on 9 September 2022, that the applicant’s brother be removed from the mother and placed in a crisis centre. The applicant had subsequently run away from her mother and had gone to the same crisis centre but was soon after placed in another public care facility in a different region. On 3 October 2022 the welfare authorities proposed that the applicant be removed from her mother and placed in an institutional care.

The applicant alleges that she complained to the welfare authorities about her mother and her maternal grandparents mistreating her and repeatedly expressed her wish to live with her father. She has not had any contact with her father since July 2022. She also submits that she cannot use any legal remedies in the relevant proceedings because she does not have a guardian or a representative.

The applicant complains under Articles 6 and 13 that in the care proceedings her wishes have not been given due consideration and that, despite the obvious conflict between the parents, the authorities failed to appoint a special guardian ad litem to protect her interest. She also complains under Article 5 that she was arbitrarily removed from her social environment and placed in an institution. Under Article 8 she complains that she had been unjustifiably deprived of enjoying a family life with her father and siblings.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Have the decision to place the applicant in the sole care of her mother, the decision to place her in a public care facility away from her siblings and the prohibition of contact between her and her father complied with Article 8 of the Convention (see Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway [GC], no. 37283/13, §§ 202-13, 10 September 2019)?

2. What measures have been taken with a view of safeguarding the applicant’s interest in the proceedings concerning care and contact arrangements (see, in particular, C v. Croatia , no. 80117/17, § 77, 8 October 2020)?