Date when decision was rendered: 29.2.1996

Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Reference: Report No. 559; 52/5/95

Reference to source

KHO 1996-A-47.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 1996 A, General Part

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 1996 A, allmän del

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 1996 A, yleinen osa

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Administrative Court

Date of publication: 1997

Pages: pp. 277-280

Subject

child welfare, parents, rights of the child, access to court,
barnomsorg, föräldrar, barnets rättigheter, rätt till domstolsprövning,
lastenhuolto, vanhemmat, lapsen oikeudet, oikeus tuomioistuinkäsittelyyn,

Relevant legal provisions

Sections 16, 17, 18, 35, 37 of the Child Welfare Act; section 3-1 of the Administrative Appeals Act

= barnskyddslag 16 §, 17 §, 18 §, 35 §, 37; lag om ändringssökande i förvaltningsärenden 3 § 1 mom.

= lastensuojelulaki 16 §, 17 §, 18 §, 35 §, 37 §; laki muutoksenhausta hallintoasioissa 3 § 1 mom.

ECHR-6-1

Abstract

The Supreme Administrative Court maintained the decision of the county administrative court.The county administrative court had rejected the appeal of a mother who had demanded the municipal social welfare board to take urgent action in order to take her child into custody.According to the mother, the child's health and development were seriously threatened due to the alcoholism and violent behaviour of the child's father.The social welfare board, which investigated the case, held that the requirements according to the Child Welfare Act for taking the child into custody were not fulfilled.The county administrative court referred, among other things, to the Article 6-1 of the ECHR in its decision to give leave to appeal against the decision of the social welfare board.

31.3.1998 / 11.4.2007 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 10.9.1997

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 3052; S97/1165

Reference to source

Registry of the Supreme Court

Högsta domstolens registratorskontor

Korkeimman oikeuden kirjaamo

Date of publication:

Subject

children, child abuse, rights of the child, parents,
barn, barnmisshandel, barnets rättigheter, föräldrar,
lapset, lasten pahoinpitely, lapsen oikeudet, vanhemmat,

Relevant legal provisions

Sections 30, 32 and 34 of the Child Custody and Right of Access Act

= lag angående vårdnad om barn och umgängesrätt 30 §, 32 §, 34 §

= laki lapsen huollosta ja tapaamisoikeudesta 30 §, 32 §, 34 §.

1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction

Abstract

A asked the court of appeal to order B to return their common children whom she had brought from the USA to Finland without his agreement.A claimed that B had violated his rights as a father to care for the children.In her response, B objected, stating that A had physically abused the children and that A and B had agreed that she had the custody of the children.She also stated that no permanent residence had come to existence in the USA.A denied the statements in B's response, claiming that the "habitual residence" of the children mentioned in the Hague Convention of 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction was in the USA.

The Child Custody and Right of Access Act incorporates the provisions of the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction.Section 30 of the Act requires that a child illegally abducted to Finland from his or her residence in another Contracting State must be returned to that state.

The court of appeal agreed that the bringing of the children to Finland was unlawful under section 32 of the Child Custody and Right of Access Act.However, A's violent behaviour towards the children and B as well as the fact that B could not return to the USA with the children due to a violation of visa requirements implied a danger that the children would risk physical and mental damage if returned to the USA.This constituted such a ground justifying denial to return the children as is laid down in section 34-1-2 of the Child Custody and Right of Access Act.The court therefore rejected the a pplication.

A appealed to the Supreme Court, repeating his claims.B's request for an oral hearing was rejected by the Court as the Court was not considering the issue of the custody of the children but of their return to the state from which they had been unlawfully taken.The Court stated that the Hague Convention aims at hindering parties to disputes concerning children from changing the legal venue of the case.Statements relating to personal characteristics should be considered in a forum at the common place of residence of the family.Contracting States are regarded as being able to provide for the security of the children.The court can refuse to order the return of abducted children only on the basis of the grounds laid down in the Act, which has to be interpreted and applied so as not to endanger the objective of the Hague Convention.

The Supreme Court stated that it had been shown that B had unlawfully brought her and A's children from their place of residence.While B still lived with the children in the USA, the question of the custody of the children was under consideration in a state superior court, which temporarily decided on the custody of the children and prohibited that they be brought outside a certain geographical area.During the trial the children lived with A.When B brought the children to Finland, she violated the court order, and an arrest order for her was issued.Later the same court ordered the care of the children to be entrusted with A.B was according to the decision only allowed to see the children in the presence of a professional visitation supervisor chosen by A.

The Supreme Court also considered the question whether there was a danger that the children would risk physical and mental damage if returned to the USA.This would constitute a ground justifying a denial to return the children as laid down in section 34-1-2 of the Child Custody and Right of Access Act.The Court found that the evidence presented in the court of appeal mainly showed that A was unsuitable to care for the children and that it related primarily to events prior to the family's move to Finland, not that the children would run a serious risk of being subject to physical and mental damage if returned to the USA.The court also took into account that the American lawyer appointed to safeguard the children's interests in the American court had assured that she would see to the safety of the children.The uncertainty of A's ability to care for the children was therefore not an obstacle to their return.That issue should be considered during the court proceedings on the question of the custody of the children under way at the time the children were brought to Finland.The fact that the children's mother B by her own action could or did not want to return to the USA in connection with their return was not an obstacle to the return.

The Court conluded that it had not been shown that the children, if returned, would be subject to a serious risk of physical or mental harm or otherwise to intolerable circumstances.There was thus no obstacle to the return.The Court changed the decision of the court of appeal and ordered the immediate return of the children to the USA.

See also Supreme Court, Report No. 3492; S98/917, decision rendered 9 November 1998.

17.4.1998 / 31.5.2006 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 3.3.2005

Judicial body: Rovaniemi Court of Appeal = Rovaniemi hovrätt = Rovaniemen hovioikeus

Reference: Report no. 191; S04/460

Reference to source

RHO 2005:7.

Electronic database FHOT within the FINLEX databank system, administered by the Finnish Ministry of Justice

Databasen FHOT inom FINLEX-databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet

Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin FHOT-tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

respect for family life, parents, children, visiting rights,
respekt för familjeliv, föräldrar, barn, umgängesrätt,
perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen, vanhemmat, lapset, tapaamisoikeus,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 21, section 2 of the Code of Judicial Procedure

= rättegångsbalken 21 kapitel 2 §

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 21 luku 2 §.

ECHR-8

Abstract

B had asked the court of first instance to order on the custody and access rights with regard to the four children she had with A.During the process, A and B reached agreement on joint custody and access rights, but disagreed on the question as to where one of the children should live.B demanded that the child should stay with her, whereas the three other children could stay with A.With reference to the reports of the social welfare authorities and to the children's own wishes, the court ruled that all four children should live with A.The court also ordered that A should pay for his own legal costs.A appealed against the decision as far as the legal costs were concerned and demanded that B should compensate his legal costs at the first instance court.A claimed that B had referred the matter to court without any justified cause.B was aware that the authorities' reports as well as certain other factors well known to B supported the fact that all four children should stay together and with A.B had not contested the reports, nor shown any evidence against them.

According to the Code of Judicial Procedure, in a case which is not amenable to settlement out of court, the parties shall be liable for their own legal costs, unless there is a special reason for rendering a party liable for the legal costs of the opposing party.Such special reason may be that the matter is disputed or that the process has been abused.In the opinion of the court of appeal, the fact that a matter is in dispute is not alone a sufficient reason to make an exception to the main rule regarding legal costs.In legal matters concerning a child, both parents have a right to put forward claims concerning the realization of custody and access rights.In view of the fact that both parents also have the right to respect for their family life, guaranteed by international human rights treaties, the court of appeal held that the relevant provision in the Code of Judicial Procedure should in this case be interpreted in a manner favourable to human rights.In cases concerning children, a parent should not be ordered to pay the legal costs of the other parent on insignificant grounds.Despite the contents of the authorities' reports, B had the right to bring the matter before a court.It had not been shown that B would have abused this right.The court rejected A's claim.The decision is final.

29.5.2006 / 29.5.2006 / RHANSKI