Her er menneskerettighetsdomstolens egen korte beskrivelse av dommen.
N.P. v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 58455/13)The applicant, Ms N.P., is a Moldovan national who was born in 1986 and lives in Chișinău. The case concerned the withdrawal of her parental authority and restrictions on visiting rights to her daughter.
On 22 September 2011 the police were called to the applicant’s home by a neighbour. The police, finding the applicant and her mother in a drunken fight and her four-year-old daughter dirty, hungry and crying, removed the child from her home and placed her in care. In the ensuing court proceedings, it was decided in February 2012 at first-instance to withdraw the applicant’s parental authority. The first-instance court relied on the police report of September 2011, an inspection of the applicant’s home (found to be unsanitary as it had no running water, electricity or gas) and submissions from the social services reporting that the child was generally neglected by her mother, often had to beg neighbours for food and did not attend school. Before the courts the applicant
submitted that, as a single parent without financial support, she was in a difficult situation but that, whilst the court proceedings were ongoing, she had obtained employment, improved her living conditions and sought to enrol her daughter in pre-school. Ultimately, however, in May 2013 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the lower courts’ decisions to withdraw parental authority.
The applicant’s repeated requests to visit her daughter were refused: initially because the court proceedings were still pending; and then in October 2013, when a guardian – the child’s aunt – was appointed, because she no longer had parental rights. In December 2013 the social services eventually allowed visits on Saturdays in the presence of the child’s guardian.
Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicant complained about the national courts’ decisions to withdraw her parental authority and the restrictions on visiting rights to her daughter. Accepting that it might have been beneficial for her daughter to be taken temporarily into care, she alleged that the authorities could have found a less severe measure than simply withdrawing her parental authority, without taking into consideration the improvements she had made to her situation and without providing support to help her raise her daughter herself.
Violation of Article 8 – in respect of the withdrawal of parental authority
Violation of Article 8 – in respect of the restrictions on visiting rights
Just satisfaction: 7,500 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,030 (costs and expenses)
_________________
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
."Vårt" lysebrune-mørkerøde såkalte barnevern stjeler mennesker
> Radikalt forum mot familiedestruksjon: http://forum.r-b-v.net/<