CASE OF VAN SLOOTEN v. THE NETHERLANDS
Here is a description of the decision in the case of Van Slooten v. the Netherlands.
The European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in the case of Van Slooten v. the Netherlands, concerning the termination of the applicant’s parental authority over her two-year and ten-month-old child. The Court concluded that the domestic authorities failed to conduct an in-depth analysis of the child’s vulnerability, despite placing considerable weight on that fact in their decision. The application for termination of parental authority was made less than one and a half years after the child was taken into care, and the domestic authorities prematurely abandoned family reunification as the ultimate goal. The Court found that the authorities did not properly assess the applicant’s parenting capacity or adequately demonstrate why reunification was no longer compatible with the child’s best interests, thus not attaching sufficient weight to protecting the applicant and her child’s Article 8 rights.
The decision is structured as follows: It begins with an introduction outlining the case’s subject matter, followed by a detailed account of the facts, including the applicant’s background, the supervision and emergency care orders, and the termination of parental authority proceedings. The decision then presents the relevant domestic legal framework and practice concerning parental authority, supervision and care orders, and the concept of “acceptable time” in Dutch law. It also includes information on post-“Strand Lobben” domestic developments. The Court then assesses the admissibility of the complaint under Article 8, followed by a detailed examination of the merits, including the parties’ submissions and the Court’s assessment based on established principles. Finally, the decision addresses the application of Article 41 of the Convention, concerning just satisfaction, and concludes with the Court’s operative provisions. There are no changes compared to previous versions, as this is the initial judgment.
The main provisions of the decision that may be the most important for its use are those concerning the Court’s assessment of whether the interference with the applicant’s right to family life was “necessary in a democratic society.” The Court reiterated the general principles applicable to cases involving child welfare measures, emphasizing the importance of family unity and reunification, the need to strike a fair balance between the interests of the child and the parents, and the positive duty of the authorities to take measures to facilitate family reunification as soon as reasonably feasible. The Court found that the domestic authorities gave up on family reunification too early, without a proper assessment of the applicant’s parenting capacity and without adequately demonstrating why reunification was no longer compatible with the child’s best interests.
