CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 5 octobre 1988

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                           AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 12270/86                       by Helena STRAND                       against Sweden             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 5 October 1988, the following members being present:                 MM. J.A. FROWEIN, Acting President                   S. TRECHSEL                   E. BUSUTTIL                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   J.-C. SOYER                   H.G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS                   H. VANDENBERGHE              Sir   Basil HALL              MM.   F. MARTINEZ                   C.L. ROZAKIS              Mrs.   J. LIDDY                Mr.   J. RAYMOND, Deputy Secretary to the Commission           Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;           Having regard to the application introduced on 24 June 1986 by Helena Strand against Sweden and registered on 15 July 1986 under file No. 12270/86;           Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;           Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 18 March 1987 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant on 7 May 1987 as well as the submissions of the parties at the hearing held on 5 October 1988;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS           The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows:           The applicant is a Swedish citizen, born in 1950.   She is an office secretary by profession and resides at Bandhagen, a suburb of Stockholm.   Before the Commission she is represented by Mr Lennart Hane, a lawyer practising in Stockholm.           The application concerns the taking into care of the applicant's daughter, born in 1985.     A.       The particular circumstances of the case   I.       On several occasions between 1978 and 1982 the applicant had voluntary contact with and had been admitted to Långbro hospital on account of psychotic problems.   After that period she had regular contacts with a psychiatrist for about two years.   Her stays at the Långbro hospital never exceeded one month.   She has periodically taken tranquillising drugs ordinated by her doctors.           The applicant became pregnant in 1984.   Being a single mother, she envisaged future difficulties, and therefore contacted a social welfare officer at the Psychosomatic Department of the Söder hospital in Stockholm.   She asked for support by the Social District Council and suggested herself that she should be placed in a home for mothers and small children together with her child.           It was agreed that the applicant and her child, when born, should be admitted to a special family ward for young mothers at the Eurenii Minne institution, a home for families or single parents going through a mental or personal crisis, run by the County Council of the County of Stockholm (Stockholms läns landsting).           During the pregnancy the applicant continued to work part time as she had done before.   She has received half a temporary disability pension since May 1984.   The applicant gave birth to her daughter on 23 February 1985.   The applicant has stated that the father of her child is BS, with whom she cohabited for a short period during the summer of 1984.   The question of paternity has, however, not yet been settled.   At present the applicant is cohabiting with LJ.           After the childbirth the applicant remained for two weeks at the hospital with her daughter and on 8 March 1985 she went to stay at the Eurenii Minne institution.   She was to stay there with her daughter for a period of six weeks on a voluntary basis.           The circumstances of the applicant's stay at the hospital where she gave birth to her child and her subsequent stay at the Eurenii Minne institution appear from the contents of a report prepared by the Social Services Administration on 3 April 1985. According to an annex to the report signed by Mr.   AD, a paediatrician at the Sachsska Children's Hospital, and Mrs.   AGW, a social welfare officer at the maternity clinic at the Söder hospital, the applicant felt nervous and under pressure for the first few days at the hospital.   On a couple of occasions she reacted by showing aggressive behaviour, which worried both the staff and other mothers.   For the latter part of her stay at the hospital she was persuaded to move to a private room, which improved the situation considerably.   She managed the practical care of the child with some support but she needed help in feeding it at fixed hours and in the right quantities.   According to the report the staff emphasised that the applicant cared for her child, wanting it to be close to her as much as possible, but sometimes found it difficult to understand its needs in various situations and to remember to watch over it in an adequate way. Sometimes she seemed to forget that her own needs should be secondary to the needs of the child.           According to the report the purpose of the applicant's subsequent stay at the Eurenii Minne institution was to find out what future support she might need.   The assessment was primarily concerned with the applicant's ability to relate emotionally to her daughter and to adequately satisfy the child's basic needs.   The part of the report covering the applicant's stay at the institution may be summarised as follows:           At the beginning of her stay at the institution the applicant was in a state of mental distress.   She suffered from anxiety and was unable to understand her daughter's needs.   On 12 March 1985 the applicant started taking medicine on her own initiative.   After a few days she was more successful in looking after her daughter.   The care the child received varied, however, according to her mother's mood. The applicant oscillated from being restless and mentally detached to exhilaration but also had periods of equanimity when there was a good chance of talking things over with her.   She did not manage to get a basic relationship with her child and it was considered that she was not capable of understanding the child's needs and its signals.           She was not able to comfort the child when it was crying although the staff of the Eurenii Minne did not consider the child difficult to comfort.   The applicant's own need for food, rest and her own anxiety intruded upon her daughter's needs.   The applicant was informed to this effect.   During a visit to the Social Welfare Office on 26 March 1985 she was told that the social authorities intended to find a foster home for her daughter.   She requested that she should be given more time and that she should be allowed to stay for the remaining six weeks at the institution as planned.   On 29 March 1985 the applicant's parents said that they were willing to look after their grandchild.   The social welfare officers dealing with the matter were not in favour of such a solution, since they considered the applicant to be heavily dependent on her parents and that this earlier had created problems in her relations towards them.   The applicant's parents refused to accept the opinion of the social welfare officers.           On 30 March 1985 the applicant moved to her parents' home as she found the personnel at the Eurenii Minne critical and even hostile towards her.   She left her daughter at the institution.   When visiting the Eurenii Minne the following evening she requested that she be allowed to take her child with her.   She was told that if she insisted on this, the social welfare standby unit (socialjouren) would be called in to demand that the child be taken into care immediately.   On 2 April 1985 the applicant and her mother met two officers of the   Social Welfare Office at the Eurenii Minne.   The applicant declared on this occasion that she no longer agreed to letting her child remain at the Eurenii Minne.   It was considered that there was a risk of the child being taken away from the institution and the matter was reported to the chairman of the Social District Council No. 10 (sociala distriktsnämnden nr. 10) of Stockholm.   Pursuant to Section 6 of the 1980 Act with Special Provisions on the Care of Young Persons (lagen med särskilda bestämmelser om vård av unga), the chairman decided on the same day to take the applicant's daughter into care on a provisional basis.   The Council was informed of and upheld this decision at a meeting held on 3 April 1985.           The above provisional decision was subsequently brought before the County Administrative Court (länsrätten).   The Court had access to a memorandum from the Eurenii Minne institution as well as the above mentioned report.   The memorandum, signed by the deputy director of Eurenii Minne, may be summarised as follows:           The applicant was very restless and worried during the first days of her stay.   She went back and forth without interruption all the time saying that she felt exhausted.   She asked the staff for help to limit the number of visits from her parents and she said that she wanted to limit her contact with them and get emancipated from them.   When she talked about her parents this was done in a very aggressive way.   The applicant did not manage to provide good care for her child during the first days of her stay, neither regarding practical things nor regarding her psychological needs.   She was anxious to hold her child and to place her at the nursing-table.   She did not dare to be left alone with her child, not even for a short while, and she could not let her child stay with her during nights. The applicant for no apparent reasons oscillated between different moods.   This manifested itself in that she ate her food too rapidly, that for no reason she burst out laughing for long periods, that she walked around for hours, and that she talked to herself.   On one occasion the applicant had an emotional outburst and she screamed again and again "I am so angry, I am so angry" waving her fists close to the face of one of the members of the staff who carried the applicant's child in her arms.   Very quickly her mood changed and she became regretful.   After some time the applicant learned certain practical things like changing nappies, but she was not at all able to see or interpret the child's signals.   This led to her carrying out practical things when there was no need for it.   For example when the child cried because it was hungry the applicant intended to give her a bath, and when she was asleep the applicant wanted to change her nappies.   On many occasions the applicant expressed her great need to sleep.   She said to members of the staff: "you have got to take care of (my child), otherwise I will become mentally ill".   The applicant could not talk to her child, she only repeated certain sentences straight out into the air.           In the memorandum the following was stated by way of conclusion:           "We find the situation very serious since the applicant's         disability could have serious consequences for (the child).         Her most fundamental needs of security, close contact,         continuity and immediate satisfaction, will not be met.         We think that there is a big risk that (the child's) future           will be endangered if her fundamental needs are not met         without delay in a calm and stable environment where she         will be able to make contacts with a small number of people."           In the light of the above the County Administrative Court upheld the decision of the Social District Council to take the applicant's child into care on a provisional basis on 16 April 1985. This decision was subsequently upheld by the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) of Stockholm on 30 April 1985.   II.      On 29 April 1985 the Social District Council decided to apply to the County Administrative Court for the taking into care of the applicant's daughter.   The Court held a hearing in the case on 7 May 1985 during which the Social District Council argued that the written material in the case showed that the applicant's mental problems were of such a character that she could not give her daughter the necessary care.   The applicant, who was present at the hearing and assisted by counsel, maintained, however, that no facts, conflicts or problems were at hand, which could substantiate the Social District Council's allegations.           The County Administrative Court heard as witnesses the deputy director of the institution where the applicant had been staying after her daughter's birth, as well as Dr.   OB, who had been the applicant's psychiatrist from January 1983 to December 1984.   The Court also heard several other persons, including the applicant's mother and the man who had been indicated as being the father of the child.           The Social District Council submitted the following documents to the Court:   a memorandum dated 24 April 1985, a new report of the Social Services Administration dated 18 April 1985 and a medical certificate, and a supplement to it, both signed by Dr.   OB on 18 April 1985.           The medical certificate which does not contain any final opinion on the care issue stated inter alia that the applicant, because of her complex relation to her parents, lacked personal maturity.   She handled stress by denying the problems and by trying to make reality look better.   These factors led to very great difficulties in taking care of a child.   Her defence mechanisms were particularly active because of the pressure she had experienced after giving birth to the child.   In the supplementary certificate, Dr.   OB stated that the applicant's mental health had clearly improved during the last two years and that the pressure and attention she was exposed to after the child was born would have been hard for anybody to bear. It was noted that this did not lead to a breakthrough of a psychosis. The original plan for the applicant and her child was to place both of them in a supportive environment.   Dr.   OB could not see any absolute reason not to try this plan by placing the applicant and her child in a foster family.   Such a placement should be combined with appropriate psychiatric contacts.           It was noted in the record of the hearing that the members of the Court before the hearing had studied the written material available.           On 10 May 1985 the County Administrative Court decided in favour of the Social District Council's application, with two of the lay members of the Court dissenting.   The Court stated the following:           "It appears from the investigation that (the applicant), on         several occasions in the years 1978 - 1982, has been admitted         to Långbro hospital due to psychotic problems. (The applicant)         has then, from January 1983 to April 1985, had regular contacts         with a psychiatrist. (The applicant) receives, since May 1984,         a 50 % sickness allowance.           In this case it is undisputed that (the applicant) cannot         alone take care of (her daughter).   The question in the case         is therefore rather whether or not (the applicant), as she         wants, together with her parents and with certain aid from         the Social Council, can satisfy (her daughter's) need of care.           In this case both written and oral statements, the latter         during the hearing in the County Administrative Court, have         been made concerning (the applicant's) ability to cope with         the demands of motherhood and how she actually managed to         satisfy these demands after giving birth at the Söder hospital         and during the subsequent stay at Eurenii Minne.   According to         these statements (the applicant) has lacked the ability to         satisfy many of the demands on her.   According to the expert         opinion which has been submitted, (the applicant) does not         reach a level which is acceptable to (her daughter), and for         that reason not even a family home placement can be considered.           (The applicant) on her part has maintained that she, together         with her parents and with the aid of the Social Council, would         be able herself to take care of (her daughter). (The applicant)         has also referred to the initial plan which inter alia included         an examination of the possibility of placing mother and child         with a family.   This plan has not been followed up.   The resources         of the Social Services Act (socialtjänstlagen) have not,         therefore,been exhausted. (The applicant) considers that the care         necessary for (her daughter) can be guaranteed without         resorting to a decision taken pursuant to the Act with Special         Provisions on the Care of Young Persons.           When balancing all the elements in the case the County         Administrative Court finds - even having regard to the         circumstances mentioned by (the applicant) - that the         conditions in the home are such as to constitute a danger         for (the daughter's) health and development.   For these         reasons, and since necessary care cannot be provided for         under other Acts, the application shall be granted.           Decision           The County Administrative Court decides, while granting the         application of the Social District Council, that (the daughter)         shall be taken into care under Section 1 second paragraph 1         of the Act with Special Provisions on the Care of Young Persons.           This decision has immediate effect."           The two dissenting lay members stated as follows:           "In this case it is undisputed that (the applicant) cannot         alone take care of (her daughter).   The question in the case         is therefore rather whether or not (the applicant), as she         wants, together with her parents and with certain aid from         the Social District Council, can satisfy (her daughter's)         need of care.           The investigation made in the case does not supply a basis for         any safe evaluation of how the placement of (the applicant)         and (her daughter) in (the applicant's) parental home would         develop, nor does the investigation at all give a basis for an         evaluation of the alternative, namely that (the applicant) and         (her daughter) would be placed in a family home.           Having regard to the fact that (the applicant) does not intend         to take care of (her daughter) alone, any danger for (the         daughter's) health which might exist does not appear to be         very acute.           The application for the taking into care is therefore not         granted."           The applicant appealed, through her counsel, to the Administrative Court of Appeal of Stockholm.   The Court held a hearing in the case on 7 November 1985, where the applicant was present and assisted by her counsel.   Eight witnesses were heard, among them Dr.   OB, Dr.   RS, who is the former Head of the Psychiatric Clinic at the Söder hospital, the applicant's parents, the man with whom the applicant was then cohabiting and the deputy director of the institution where the applicant had been staying after the birth of her daughter.           In support of the applicant's appeal a medical certificate issued by Dr.   RS on 26 August 1985 was submitted.   After having examined the files of the social case leading to the taking into care of the applicant's daughter, including the medical certificates as well as the reports prepared by the Social Services Administration, and after having met the applicant on a couple of occasions, Dr.   RS in this certificate stated inter alia that no psychotic symptoms could be observed by him as concerned the applicant, nor any signs which with certainty could be classified as defects following a psychosis.   The applicant was a special person and her tendency towards mental insufficiency with streaks of anguish and personal insecurity had in spite of her good sides not allowed anything but a modest social and personal adaptation.   Nothing supported the fundamental hypothesis governing "the observation" of the applicant, i.e. that she was a woman suffering from a psychosis and that her child therefore should be protected from her influence.           In his report Dr.   RS furthermore noted that the applicant, who on previous occasions had turned to the medical service for help and support in her new situation as a single mother, turned to the social service to get support.   She apparently wanted to come to a home for unmarried mothers to get help and support after the birth of the child.   She could not have imagined that as a result she would be placed in an institution specialising in care and examination of mothers with social and mental problems.   The applicant had, obviously under the threat of otherwise immediately losing her child, accepted   a humiliating observation during her stay at the institution.   The kind of observation she had been exposed to was doubtful.   The stereotyped "psychological" opinions that had been expressed about the applicant's ability to "feel the needs of the child" and to "see and interpret the signals of the child" were not convincing and no great importance could be attached to them.   The documents of the case did not prove that the applicant through her mental character or condition would endanger the mental health of her child.   At this stage it was too early to determine if she was in need of support from outside her family in order to take care of the child.           Dr.   RS also referred to an examination of the applicant made by Dr. ÅH from the psychiatric clinic of the Söder hospital subsequent to an aggressive outburst of the applicant at the hospital.   After having examined the applicant Dr. ÅH noted inter alia the following:           "As appears from the note of admission the patient is in         contact with the psychiatric clinic of Enskede, and the contact         seems to be working well.   She has great confidence in Dr.   OB         and considers that he should be brought into the discussion if         there is an attempt to stop her from moving home to her fiancé,         the father of her child.   She has previously wanted to go to         a home for mothers with small children, but has reconsidered         the matter.   What happened today at the ward was that the         patient got angry with staff of the ward who wanted to force         her into a home.   Mental status: Lucid.   Well-oriented.   Calm         and collected.   Good formal and emotional contact.   Assessment:         Previously mentally ill woman who today for understandable         reasons showed anger and aggressiveness.   Not psychotic or in         need of psychopharmacologic drugs."           It was noted in the records of the hearing that the members of the Court had studied the written material before the hearing.           In a judgment of 28 November 1985 the Administrative Court of Appeal confirmed the decision of the County Administrative Court. In its judgment it stated as follows:           "According to Section 1 second paragraph 1 of the Act with         Special Provisions on the Care of Young Persons, a person who         is under 18 years of age must be provided with care under the         Act, if it may be presumed that the necessary care cannot be         given to the young person with the consent of his guardians.         Care is to be provided for the young person if the lack of         care for him or any other condition in the home entails a         danger to his health or development.           (The applicant) has not consented to the taking into care         according to the said Act.           From the investigation in the case and from what was stated         during the oral hearing before the Administrative Court of         Appeal the following main elements appear.   (The daughter)         was placed in a foster home on 18 June 1985.   The stay there         has been favourable for her and she is, as regards her         physical and mental status, normally developed.   (The         applicant) has visited the foster home four times.   A further         four visits were planned.   Of these, three were cancelled by         (the applicant).   (The applicant) has had telephone contact         with the foster home approximately once a week.   Since the         beginning of September (the applicant) has broken her         relationship with (her daughter's) father and moved back to         live with her parents.   Her intention is to take care of (her         daughter), during the first year with the help of her parents.           The Administrative Court of Appeal shares the evaluation of         the County Administrative Court that the conditions in the         home, at the time when the County Administrative Court took         the decision, were such that a danger existed for the health         and development of (the daughter).           What appeared during the oral hearing before the         Administrative Court of Appeal supports the view that the         conditions in (the applicant's) home are still such that they         entail a danger to (the daughter's) health or development.         The conditions for care under the Act with Special Provisions         on the Care of Young Persons are accordingly fulfilled."           The applicant appealed against this judgment to the Supreme Administrative Court (regeringsrätten) which, by decision of 28 January 1986, refused to grant leave to appeal.           As mentioned in the above judgment the applicant's child was placed in a foster home at Vattholma outside Uppsala on 18 June 1985. She is still at the same foster home.   III.     By letter of 23 June 1986 the applicant submitted a motion to the Supreme Administrative Court for a re-hearing.   She stated inter alia that the Courts had violated the European Convention on Human Rights.   She submitted a medical certificate of 21 May 1986 signed by Dr.   PF-F.   After having examined the same written material on the applicant as was examined by Dr.   RS and after having seen the applicant on eight occasions, each time for an hour and a half during a period of two months, Dr.   PF-F stated inter alia the following in his certificate:           "(The applicant) has on the occasions when I have seen her         shown no signs whatsoever of mental illness nor of the kind         of mental abnormality that could be placed on the same level         as illness. (The applicant) has shown a normal intellectual         capacity and even an emotional development that can be said         to be completely normal.   She has not shown any signs         whatsoever of a psychosis or of rests of a psychosis, no         defect condition and no symptoms that would classify her         condition as neurotic or as some kind of character-         disturbance of her personality.   (The applicant) has a very         realistic idea of her situation and a completely adequate         and reality-oriented judgment.   (The applicant) does not         find herself in a borderline situation and there are no         signs of any latent mental illness or of any abnormality         that could be supposed to become manifest.           Accordingly there are no signs whatsoever pointing in the         direction of inability or even danger in connection with         her taking care of her daughter. (The applicant) is fully         capable both mentally and socially to take complete care         of her daughter. (The applicant) has also the full         support of her parents to whom she has got a very good         relationship and of her fiancé, in order to manage all         practical and social problems connected with her         care of her child.   I therefore very firmly regard the         fact that (the applicant) has not got her daughter in her         care as being completely unjustified, both medically and         humanly completely unreasonable, and I suggest that (the         applicant) should immediately be given full custody of         her daughter."           The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the motion on 24 July 1986.           When addressing her motion for a re-hearing to the Supreme Administrative Court, the applicant also sent a request to the Social District Council of the City of Stockholm, requesting that the public care of her daughter should cease immediately and that the applicant, while the matter was examined, should have an extended right to see the child.           On 18 December 1986 the Social District Council rejected the request.   The applicant was permitted to visit her daughter at the foster home once a month as previously.           The applicant appealed against this decision to the County Administrative Court and a new medical certificate issued by Dr.   RS on 23 August 1987 was submitted by the applicant in support of her appeal.   However, on 1 September 1987 the applicant withdrew her appeal.   In the letter by which she withdrew her appeal the applicant stated that she had decided, after considering the matter with her family, that her child should remain with the foster family.   On 3 September 1987 the County Administrative Court struck the case off its list of cases.           On 3 December 1987 the applicant gave birth to her second child.   At her request the child has been placed with foster parents since 18 December 1987.   B.       Applicable domestic law and practice           As of January 1982 the basic rules on the responsibility of the authorities for the young are laid down in the Social Services Act (socialtjänstlagen).   This Act contains provisions regarding supportive and preventive measures, which are taken with the consent and approval of the individuals concerned.           The 1980 Act with Special Provisions on the Care of Young Persons (lagen med särskilda bestämmelser om vård av unga (the 1980 Act)) is concerned only with cases where the parents have refused to give their consent to the necessary care.   The two sections of this Act which provide the prerequisites for taking children into care and for making such decisions on a provisional basis immediately, i.e. Sections 1 and 6, read as follows:           Section 1           "Care is to be provided pursuant to this Act for persons         under 18 if it may be presumed that the necessary care         cannot be given to a young person with the consent of the         person or persons having custody of him and, in the case         of a young person aged 15 or over, if a similar presumption         can be made concerning his own consent.           Care is to be provided for a young person if           1.   his health or development is endangered by lack of care         or other conditions in his home, or           2.   the young person seriously endangers his health or         development by abuse of habit-forming agents, criminal         activity or any other comparable behaviour.           Care pursuant to sub-section 2 paragraph 2 may also be         provided for a person aged 18 or over but under 20, if such         care is more appropriate than other care in view of the         young person's needs and general personal circumstances."           Section 6           "The social welfare committee may order a young person under         20 years of age to be taken into care immediately if the young         person probably needs to be provided with care under this Act         and a court decision concerning care cannot be awaited owing         to the risk to the young person's health or development or         because the continuing inquiry can be seriously impeded or         further measures prevented.           If a decision by the social welfare committee concerning         taking into care cannot be awaited, an order may be made by         the chairman of the committee or by another member appointed         by the committee.   The order thus made must be reported at         the next meeting of the committee.           After the social welfare committee has applied for care         pursuant to the Act, the court may also make an order for         the immediate taking of the young person into care."           The competence provided for the social welfare committee according to this Act can also be exercised by one of the Social Councils of the municipality.           The following is an extract from the preparatory works of the 1980 Act as reproduced in NJA II 1980 (Nytt Juridiskt Arkiv, "Reports on Legislation"):           "With particular regard to the issue of care without consent         the Parliamentary Committee stated:           An important point of departure for the reform of the social         services is that salient features in the handling of individual         cases should be respect for liberty and the right of the         individual to decide about his own life.   The aim of the social         services should be to co-operate with the client as far as         possible, in order to make him take part in decisions as to         the planning of treatment and make him co-operate actively         in carrying it out.   The social services should offer help         and support, but not take over the individual's responsibility         for his own life.   Personal initiative and responsibility         must be made part of care and treatment.   Thus the social         services may work more actively in a preventive way, and         the opportunity to achieve more long-lasting results will         be improved.           This fundamental principle of the new legislation has been         laid down in Section 9 of the bill on the new Social Services         Act, which stipulates that the measures taken by the Social         Council in regard to any individual person should be conceived         and carried out in co-operation with the person concerned.         Consequently all powers of the social services to use coercive         measures on adults have been abolished.   It is true that         regarding young people and children the possibility of         providing care outside their home contrary to the wishes of         the young person or his parents is retained.   In this field         too, the reform means, however, that the right of the         individual to be a party to those decisions that concern his         own fate is more strongly stressed.   The individual should         be able to turn to the social services confidently and ask         for help, without risking undesired effects in the form of         various coercive measures.           At the same time there is unanimity in considering that in         certain cases society must be able to use coercive measures         against an individual, whenever this is needed to avoid an         immediate risk to the life or health of somebody."           (Extract from the Government Bill as regards Section 1:)           "The second paragraph, point 1, indicates that one ground for         measures on the part of society is that lack of care for a         young person in his home or some other situation in his home         constitutes a danger to his health or development.   This rule         refers to situations where the young person does not get         sufficient care in his home or is exposed to treatment in his         home that means danger to his mental or physical health or to         his social development.   By the word home is to be understood         the home of the parents, as well as any other home where the         young person is residing permanently.   Under this description         come, inter alia, cases where the young person is subject to         maltreatment in his home.   Even a slight degree of maltreatment         must be supposed to cause danger to the health or development         of the young person.   If in such a case the parents oppose         such measures as the Social Council may consider necessary to         assure the protection of the young person, application of the         law may come into focus.   In case there has been maltreatment         of a more serious kind, the young person should as a matter         of course be provided with care outside his home, at least         for some time.           As with the 1960 Act, this provision may also be applied in &#