CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 juin 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 30 June 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 10250/23 Ludmila KANALOVA against the Netherlands lodged on 3 March 2023 communicated on 12 June 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the decision to terminate the applicant’s parental authority ( ouderlijke macht ) over three of her children. On 18 May 2016 the children’s judge issued a supervision order ( ondertoezichtstelling) in respect of the applicant’s children born in 2013 and   2015 because of the unsafe and unstable parenting situation they were in. On 10   May 2017 a supervision order was issued in respect of the child born in December 2016. The applicant was intensively supported and supervised by care providers. While there was initial progress, concerns regarding the neglect of the children had become so serious that on 22 October 2019 the children’s judge issued orders to place the children into care ( uithuisplaatsing ). On 4 May 2021 the Regional Court granted the childcare authorities’ request to terminate the applicant’s parental authority, considering that this was in the best interest of the children because of the applicant’s lacking parenting abilities and the expiry of the acceptable term ( aanvaardbare termijn ) for them to cope with uncertainties regarding their family situation. This decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 23 April 2021. The court considered, inter   alia , that the efforts made by the childcare authorities and the opportunities offered to the mother to prevent the children’s placement into care, justified, in the court’s opinion, that the authorities no longer worked towards reuniting the mother and her children after the issuing of the care orders. The decision to terminate the applicant’s parental authority became final by judgment of the Supreme Court of 4 November 2022. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that no efforts were made to reunite her with her children after they were placed into care. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the decision to terminate the applicant’s parental authority over her three children constitute a violation of her right to respect for her family life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention (see Strand Lobben and Others v.   Norway   [GC], no.   37283/13, §§ 202-213, 10 September 2019)?