## Facts

- A Finnish father (L.) had two minor children.
- In late 1991 and early 1992, Finnish child-welfare authorities suspected that one child had been sexually abused and that the other was at risk, and they also had concerns about neglect.
- In January 1992, the authorities placed both children in emergency public care and later continued public care under child-protection measures.
- After investigation, the authorities concluded the sexual-abuse allegations were unsubstantiated, but found that the father had neglected the children and that the neglect would likely continue if the children returned to his care.
- Finnish law required a written care plan prepared with parental participation. The authorities prepared a care plan in the father’s presence and recorded his wishes; the father refused to sign and alleged parts of the plan were drafted without his genuine participation.
- The children were placed in long-term out-of-home family care, and the father’s contact was limited to four supervised meetings per year at the children’s placement home; requests for broader contact (including unsupervised time or meetings elsewhere) were refused.
- The father challenged the care and contact arrangements in Finnish proceedings but did not obtain relief.
- In 1994, the father and the children’s paternal grandfather applied to Strasbourg, relying mainly on Article 8 (family life) and also complaining about the length of domestic proceedings under Article 6 § 1.

## Issues

1. Whether Finland’s decision to take the children into public care interfered with Article 8 in a way that was lawful and “necessary in a democratic society.”
2. Whether Finland’s implementation of the care decision—especially maintaining very limited, strictly supervised contact and not taking adequate steps to reunite the family—was “necessary in a democratic society” under Article 8.
3. Whether the overall length of the domestic proceedings concerning the public care and access arrangements exceeded a “reasonable time” in breach of Article 6 § 1.

## Decision

- No violation of Article 8 as to the initial taking of the children into public care: the measure pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the children’s health and rights, and the authorities had relevant and sufficient reasons at the time given the seriousness of the concerns.
- Violation of Article 8 as to the implementation of the care measure: the sustained, severe restrictions on contact (four supervised meetings per year) and the authorities’ early shift toward a long-term separation, without adequate steps aimed at reunification, were disproportionate.
- Violation of Article 6 § 1: the domestic proceedings regarding care and contact lasted too long and did not meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
- The Court awarded just satisfaction (non-pecuniary damages and costs/expenses).

## Legal Principles

- Article 8 protects the parent–child relationship; measures preventing parents and children from enjoying each other’s company amount to an interference requiring justification under Article 8 § 2.
- Child-protection interference with family life must be (i) in accordance with the law, (ii) directed to a legitimate aim (including protecting children), and (iii) necessary in a democratic society, meaning proportionate and supported by relevant and sufficient reasons.
- Taking a child into public care should normally be temporary; implementation measures should be consistent with the aim of reuniting parent and child when circumstances allow.
- While states have a margin of appreciation in child-welfare assessments, stricter review is required for additional limitations such as stringent restrictions on parental contact.
- Very limited, inflexible contact over a prolonged period can endanger family ties and therefore requires particularly weighty justification tied to the child’s welfare and a continuing assessment of whether less restrictive measures are possible.
- Under Article 6 § 1, cases affecting parent–child relations require exceptional diligence; delay can cause irreversible harm to the relationship, so proceedings must be completed within a reasonable time.

## Conclusion

In *L. v. Finland*, the ECtHR accepted that Finland could initially place the children in public care given the concerns then known, but held that Finland violated Article 8 by maintaining extremely restricted supervised contact for years and failing to take adequate steps aimed at reunification, and also violated Article 6 § 1 because the domestic care-and-access proceedings took an unreasonably long time.


L. v. Finland, 31 Eur. H.R. Rep. 737 (2000)