Margareta and Roger Andersson v Sweden 14 EHRR 615: restriction of access by parent to child in public care
European Court of Human Rights: restriction of access by parent to child in public care: Applicants were mother and son. Social welfare authorities placed son into foster home to protect his health and development for one and a half years during which time, the authorities applying domestic law, prohibited almost all contact between the applicants. Applicants complained that authorities interfered with their right to respect for family and private life within the meaning of Art 8. Interference: It was accepted that mutual enjoyment by parent and child of each other’s company constitutes a fundamental element of family life, which is interfered with if a child is taken into public care. In accordance with the law: Interference must be based on domestic law, the consequences of which must be reasonable foreseeable by those concerned, if necessary with the aid of appropriate advice. A discretionary power granted by legislation does not violate this principle provided that its scope and manner of exercise are sufficiently precise to avoid arbitrary decisions. Legitimate aim: The measures in question were clearly aimed at protecting health, morals, rights and freedom of the children, all which are legitimate for the purposes of Art 8(2). Necessary in a democratic society: a parent’s and child’s right to respect for family life includes measures directed to them being united. The government failed to show with sufficient precision that the far-reaching and severe measures concerned were both necessary and aimed at reunification of the applicant’s family. The measures were therefore disproportionate to the legitimate aims pursued and not necessary in a democratic society.