European Court sentences the Netherlands for wrongfully terminating parental authority

European Court sentences the Netherlands for wrongfully terminating parental authorityIn a landmark ruling in a case I filed on behalf of a client, the European Court convicted the Netherlands for violating human rights on 15 April 2025. The Court found that the court wrongly and too quickly terminated a mother's parental authority after a short period of eviction. The Court finds that too soon they gave up to place the daughter at home, insufficient research was done to see whether the mother was still able to care for her daughter, and that the specific characteristics of the mother and her daughter were not sufficiently taken into account.For decades, there have been complaints from parents, children and juvenile lawyers about how children are (urgently or not) removed from home, the inadequate investigations, the unequal legal position of parents before the children's court, the lack of work to relocate and the limited treatment when a child is removed from home. The many reports, investigations and documentaries have also had this strong criticism for years, such as the Children's Ombudsman's 2013 investigation and the 2022 investigation by the Health Care and Youth Inspectorate into the fact-finding investigation in 2022. But the European Court had not condemned the Netherlands in the field of relocation since the 2002 ruling on the emergency placement of the child Venema. The ECtHR then ruled that parents are not sufficiently involved in decision-making Process.the Van Slooten case also started with a emergency eviction authorization in 2015. This court decision was not subject to review by the European Court. But the way things are going is no less poignant and shocking. The family guardian wanted to see the minor and wanted to have contact with the mother in connection with the implementation of the undersupervision. This measure was adopted on October 22, 2015. Mother had left one institution where she was staying for another institution. This had happened without consultation with the family guardian. The family guardian believed that there was “withdrawal from authority”. On October 28, 2015, the family guardian emailed the mother's guidance that a removal permit will be requested IF there is no appointment on October 29, 2015. The mother will make that appointment. The mother could therefore assume that no removal authorization would be requested. However, the family guardian will still request and receive an emergency eviction permit from the court on October 29, 2015. The family guardian does not inform the court about the appointment made. She actually uses that permission: the moment it was agreed to talk and see the girl is used and abused by the family guardian to take the daughter away from mother. Five police men and four men from the certified institution are present to take the girl. After that, mother does not see her daughter for several weeks. The certified institution also wants mother to undergo a family stay at family psychiatry at the GGZ Drenthe in Beilen. But mother does not think the heavy drug of a family admission is necessary, she has no confidence in the family guardian and, in addition, she has heard bad stories about this institution. She would love to participate in research, but in a different way or a family stay at another institution. The certified institution believes that mother has been around too long. As early as February 18, 2016, the decision was made that the daughter will not return to her mother, because the mother does not agree to take in the family. “Mother is not cooperating”, says the certified institution. That decision was therefore already made within four months of the start of the undersupervision! A direct result of this is that the contact between mother and daughter is further reduced, first supervised from once a week to once every two weeks, for an hour and a half. Less than a year later, intercourse would be further reduced to once every four weeks. Mother asks the court for a further investigation into her options for caring for and raising her daughter. She even presents an extensive research plan to the court along with her guidance. But this plan is considered insufficient and rejected by the court, partly on the advice of the Child Protection Board. The children's court is, among other things, that the mother set as a starting point in her research plan:”The starting point and joint aim is for the daughter to come home to mother.”. The mother is thus in line with the premise that work should be done to relocate. This is also a positive obligation for the government resulting from the right to undisturbed family and private life under Article 8 ECHR. The certified institution took as its starting point that the daughter”lives in a place where she gets the care, love and attention she needs”, read: in the foster family. The children's judges agree with the g.i., judge that the daughter's perspective is not necessarily with the mother and believe that the perspective no longer needs to be investigated now due to the passage of time. The girl has been in the foster family for too long now. In this ruling, the European Court emphasizes that the starting point should indeed be that the child returns to the family. The Court also finds that insufficient research has been done into this mother's parenting abilities and that working on family reunification/relocation was given up too quickly. The Court also believes that the Child Protection Council has not sufficiently investigated the minor himself. The council talks about a 'vulnerable' child, but does not substantiate or specify this. The mother herself has also not been taken into account enough. The judges did not test this critically enough. The mother subsequently had three more children, for whom she also simply shapes care and upbringing. It illustrates all the more that her and her daughter were greatly wronged. She still sees her eldest daughter only once a month, accompanied by a foster mother. This case is not isolated. Recently, the WODC issued another report”Relocation after forced eviction” showing that:

• Many relocations start with an emergency authorization;
• Interaction is not started immediately after a removal from home, and is almost always supervised first;
• The certified institution takes a “perspective decision” during the undersupervision, while the minor's perspective is, in principle, just at home;
• But in about a fifth of the cases, the researchers see that work has been done to place them at home. The parents endorse this low percentage. The family guardians themselves have the impression that this percentage is much higher.
• In the end, only about 40% will be returned, part of which was removed from home again.

In other words, if your child is removed from home, the chance that you will not get your child home is much higher than that of getting your child back. It is due to incorrect deployment and insufficient research by the relief efforts. Judges do not test critically enough and assume the statements of the council and youth protection too quickly. The European Court is now sentencing the Netherlands for this in this case. Mother gets a small piece of bleeding with €20,000, = compensation.