A.P.R. V.B. CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE PELLONPÄÄ

(Translation)

I voted in favour of finding a violation of Article 8 in this case. However, I have to disagree with the reasons that led the Court to find a violation. The Chamber “considers that ... the care order in itself and, above all, its implementation were unsatisfactory” (see paragraph 70 of the judgment). While the criticism of the implementation of that measure appears to me to be justified, I disagree with the conclusion that the care order was not in itself satisfactory for the purposes of Article 8.

Although it is true that the procedure that led to the applicants' parental responsibility being withdrawn began with the “very negative” report of Ms Klose (see paragraph 71 of judgment), the fact remains that the concerns expressed by that social worker were to a large extent confirmed in the ensuing proceedings. Thus, two psychologists from whom expert evidence was sought by the domestic courts reached the same conclusion regarding the parents' inability to bring up their children and the need, in the children's interest, to separate them from their parents and subsequently to keep them separated. Contrary to what is suggested in paragraph 72 of the judgment, I do not find any contradictions between the two opinions such as would undermine their credibility.

In view of the national authorities' “wide margin of appreciation in assessing the necessity of taking a child into care” (see paragraph 67 of the judgment) and the procedure that was followed in that connection, which to my mind cannot be criticised, I fail to see how the authorities can be said not to “have given sufficient consideration to additional measures of support as an alternative to what is by far the most extreme measure, namely separating the children from their parents” (see paragraph 75 of the judgment).

In my opinion, what may on the other hand amount to a violation of Article 8 is the manner in which the separation was effected. The two children were placed in different foster homes, all contact with the parents was severed for the first six months and the applicants' right to see their children was severely curtailed even after that period had expired. While I can accept that the reasons given for ordering these measures were also relevant, I am not persuaded that it was necessary to act in such a heavy-handed manner.

In the light of the foregoing, I conclude that the manner in which the applicants' parental responsibility was withdrawn amounted to a violation of Article 8.