Entrusting children to the care of their wider family

The ASLPC had not contacted the wider family in order to ascertain the possibility of entrusting the children to the care of family members even after the issue of the preliminary injunctions, in spite of the fact that the ASLPC should do so on its own initiative. The ASLPC personnel had begun to act only after they were repeatedly requested to do so by the children’s grandfather and uncle (they advised the grandfather of the possibility to lodge a proposal for entrusting the children to his care only during his second visit to the ASLPC). Nevertheless, after initial inactivity, the ASLPC began to deal with the children’s situation in a relatively intense manner. Now the ASLPC at least supports intensive contacts of the children with the family, their stays in the family on weekends and beyond and the entrusting of the youngest children into the care of the mother while the latter is serving her prison sentence. The Defender therefore closed the inquiry.

Entrusting children to the care of their wider family

The Defender opened an inquiry on his own initiative into the matter of minor children whose mother had been detained in April 2008 and taken into custody. The authority for the social and legal protection of children (hereinafter the “ASLPC”) had lodged a proposal for ordering preliminary injunctions, because care of the minor children had to be ensured after the mother was detained by the Police. The Defender found maladministration in the procedure of the ASLPC as it had failed to sufficiently ascertain, directly in connection with the lodging of the proposal for ordering preliminary injunctions, whether a member of the wider family would be able to ensure care of the children (the Defender found no documents in this respect in the file – an official record of an interview with the mother after her detention was also missing).

The ASLPC had not contacted the wider family in order to ascertain the possibility of entrusting the children to the care of family members even after the issue of the preliminary injunctions, in spite of the fact that the ASLPC should do so on its own initiative. The ASLPC personnel had begun to act only after they were repeatedly requested to do so by the children’s grandfather and uncle (they advised the grandfather of the possibility to lodge a proposal for entrusting the children to his care only during his second visit to the ASLPC). Nevertheless, after initial inactivity, the ASLPC began to deal with the children’s situation in a relatively intense manner. Now the ASLPC at least supports intensive contacts of the children with the family, their stays in the family on weekends and beyond and the entrusting of the youngest children into the care of the mother while the latter is serving her prison sentence. The Defender therefore closed the inquiry.