CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 décembre 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 5 January 2026   FOURTH SECTION Applications nos. 39959/23 and 39976/23 Hendrik DE HEER against the Netherlands and Tamara DE HEER-STEENHUISEN against the Netherlands lodged both on 26 October 2023 communicated on 12 December 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the decisions to terminate the applicants’ parental authority ( ouderlijke macht ) over four of their minor children. In September 2019 the children’s judge issued an emergency care order ( spoed uithuisplaatsing ) and placed the children under supervision ( ondertoezichtstelling ) of a certified youth protection institution ( Gecertificeerde Instelling   – hereinafter “the GI”). This decision was taken after ongoing and structural concerns for the children’s well-being in their family, where they were considered to have been subjected to emotional neglect, and the parents’ inability to meet their children’s needs. The children were placed in separate families, the youngest two at an address that was not disclosed to the applicants. The applicants were allowed infrequent, supervised contact with their children. The children’s judge considered that the family situation should be assessed. The supervision and care orders were repeatedly extended. The Regional Court decided that an external investigation should be conducted after finding that the GI had responded inadequately to its request to answer a number of specific questions and come up with a plan on how, and under which conditions, the children would be able to be reunited with their parents. The outcome of this external investigation was that reunification could be brought about but only under very intensive assistance and supervision. In the subsequent care order proceedings, the domestic courts concluded that while the external investigation indeed considered reunification possible under stringent conditions, the father’s behaviour made it impossible for those conditions to be met. The applicants disagreed, arguing that they were willing to accept help but that certain preconditions imposed by the GI had been unnecessary and that emotional neglect necessitating the care orders had not been established. An appeal on points of law was rejected by the Supreme Court on 24 February 2023. In the meantime, on 9 September 2022, the Regional Court granted the childcare authorities’ request to terminate the applicants’ parental authority because of their lacking parenting abilities and the expiry of the acceptable time ( aanvaardbare termijn ) for the children to cope with uncertainties regarding their family situation. This decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 28 June 2023 before which the applicants had raised the same arguments as during the proceedings concerning the care order extension. The applicants sought advice from a specialised lawyer to submit an appeal on points of law to the Supreme Court but received negative advice on 18   August 2023. The applicants complain under Article   8 of the Convention that there had been an inadequate examination into the facts before their parental authority was terminated and that insufficient efforts were made at reuniting them with their children. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention (see Missaoui and Akhandaf v.   Belgium (dec.), no. 54795/21, §§ 50-57, 3 September 2024)?   2.     Did the decision to terminate the applicants’ parental authority over their children constitute a violation of their right to respect for their family life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention (see, amongst other authorities, Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway   [GC], no.   37283/13, §§   202-213, 10   September 2019 and Van Slooten v. the Netherlands , no.   45644/18, § 76, 15 April 2025)?