(1) For example reforms of national Child law entered into force for Germany in July 1998, for Austria in July 2001.Google Scholar

(2) Plans to reform the law of guardianship for adults are currently debated in Switzerland, which may bring some minor changes concerning procedures for minors, too.Google Scholar

(3) Text available at: http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/BasicTexts.htm.Google Scholar

(4) Text available at: http://www.unhcr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm.Google Scholar

(5) Art. 8 (1) ECHR.Google Scholar

(6) Art. 6 ECHR.Google Scholar

(7) See § 1773 ff German Civil Code, Art. 370bis § 4 Code Civil Belgium, Art. 1:295 Civil Code Netherlands, Art. 311 Swiss Civil Code.Google Scholar

(8) For the scope of the reform of child law see: Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Reform des Kindschaftsrechts (Kindschaftsrechtsreformgesetz - KindRG). Bundestag - Drucksache 13/4899; Bäumel et al. : Familienrechtsreformkommentar (1998).Google Scholar

(9) § 1666 German Civil Code provides that, where the physical, mental or emotional welfare of a child is placed at risk by neglect or mistreatment of the child or because parents otherwise fail to comply with their parental duties, the Family Court shall order the measures necessary to protect the child when voluntary measures have been insufficient to protect the child's welfare.Google Scholar

(10) § 1666, § 1666a German Civil Code.Google Scholar

(11) See Münder/Mutke/Schone, Kindeswohl zwischen Jugendhilfe und Justiz – Professionelles Handeln in Kindeswohlverfahren (2000), p. 137: 11,6 % of the cases resulted in a complete withdrawal of parental responsibility; 29,3 % lead to the withdrawal of the right to determine the child's place of residence, in 27,3 % of the cases the right of personal care for the child was withdrawn.Google Scholar

(12) § 1791a, § 1791b German Civil Code.Google Scholar

(13) Statistisches Bundesamt (Wiesbaden 2001).Google Scholar

(14) In Belgium the transfer of guardianship to the youth authorities is regulated by the Loi organique des centres publics d'aide sociale (1976).Google Scholar

(15) See § 145, § 187, § 213 Austrian Civil Code.Google Scholar

(16) § 1666, § 1666a German Civil Code.Google Scholar

(17) Art. 1:266 ff, Art. 1:295 ff, Art. 1:302 Civil Code Netherlands.Google Scholar

(18) Art. 1:254 ff Civil Code Netherlands.Google Scholar

(19) s. 33 Children Act 1989 (available at http://www.hsmo.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/Ukpga_19890041_en_1.htm.Google Scholar

(20) This principle is mirrored by Art. 9 (1) UN-Convention which concerns the separation of a child from his/her parents.Google Scholar

(21) This approach is described i. a. by Dölle, Familienrecht, Band 2 (1965), p. 696 f.Google Scholar

(22) Münder/Mutke/Schone, Kindeswohl zwischen Jugendhilfe und Justiz – Professionelles Handeln in Kindeswohlverfahren (2000), p. 247 f, report practice of some youth authorities to allocate from 400 up to 800 cases to one guardian, who works with the support of administrative staff and social workers.Google Scholar

(23) As reported by practitioners working for youth authorities in Austria.Google Scholar

(24) Hansbauer/Oelerich/Wunsch, Perspektiven der Vormundschaft, JAmt 2002, p. 229 (231 f).Google Scholar

(25) Münder/Mutke/Schone, Kindeswohl zwischen Jugendhilfe und Justiz – Professionelles Handeln in Kindeswohlverfahren (2000), p. 259, found that some guardians had no personal contact to any of the children, most guardians saw the children in context with care planning conferences only, i.e. on occasions where other persons were present, too.Google Scholar

(26) Zitelmann, Die Vormundschaft aus Sicht von Mündeln. In: Hansbauer (ed.), Neue Wege in der Amtsvormundschaft (2002), p. 54 (58 ff).Google Scholar

(27) See: ”Dresdner Erklärung – die Zukunft der Amtsvormundschaften“, DAVorm 2000, p. 437ff, which was developed by practitioners from youth authorities.Google Scholar

(28) Numbers given by practicioners working for the Ambulante Jeugdbescherming en Jeugdhulpverlening in Leusden (Netherlands), a Dutch welfare organisation.Google Scholar

(29) See: Zenz, Kontakt, Kontinuität, Kompetenz und Interessenvertretung ohne Interessenkonflikt. Anforderungen an die Vormundschaft aus Sicht der betroffenen Kinder. JAmt 2002, p. 222; Zenz, Zusammenführung von Amtsvormundschaft und Beistandschaft in einer eigenständigen Interessenvertretungsbehörde. In: Hansbauer (ed.), Neue Wege in der Amtsvormundschaft (2002), p. 107 ff.Google Scholar

(30) Art. 1:238 ff Civil Code Netherlands.Google Scholar

(31) See § 1836, § 1836a German Civil Code.Google Scholar

(32) See inter alia: Annual Reports of the Children Act Advisory Committee (till 1997), Reports from the Social Services Inspectorate, Children Act Reports published by the Department of Health.Google Scholar

(33) Z and Others v. the United Kingdom, application no. 29392/95, judgement 10 May 2001 (A summary and the full judgement of the Court are available on-line by searching HUDOC, at http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/).Google Scholar

(34) Such a special guardian shall be granted parental responsibility for the child and furthermore shall be entitled to exercise parental responsibility to the exclusion of any other person with parental responsibility for the child. See: Adoption and Children Bill 2002 para 94; Department of Health, Adoption – a new approach - A White Paper (Dec. 2000); Rather cautious: Lowe/Murch, The plan for the child - Adoption or long-term fostering (2002), p. 148f.Google Scholar

(35) SOU (Swedish Government Official Reports Series) 2000:77, p. 28: “custody should be transferred to foster parents in a greater number of cases … in accordance with Chapter 6 of the Parental Code. … social welfare committees should … take the initiative to transfer custody to the child's foster parents if they consider it to be in the best interests of the child. They should be able to do this even without the consent of the custodians.”Google Scholar

(36) Art. 1:299a Civil Code Netherlands.Google Scholar

(37) Zitelmann (2002), p. 57.Google Scholar

(38) See Salgo, Pflegekindschaft und Staatsintervention (1987), p. 393 f.Google Scholar

(39) Art. 12 II of the UN-Convention on the Rights of the Child provides that every child has the right to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting him or her either directly or through a representative or an appropriate body. In addition to that Art. 9 II of the UN-Convention on the Rights of the Child refers to the child's right (as an interested party) to be heard in relation to proceedings involving separation from his or her parents.Google Scholar

(40) Art. 394 Code Civil Belgium, Art. 809 Act on Civil Procedures Netherlands.Google Scholar

(41) Zitelmann, Die Vormundschaft aus Sicht von Mündeln. In: Hansbauer (ed.), Neue Wege in der Amtsvormundschaft (2002), p. 54 (57).Google Scholar

(42) § 50b German Law on Non-Contentious Matters.Google Scholar

(43) Münder/Mutke/Schone, Kindeswohl zwischen Jugendhilfe und Justiz – Professionelles Handeln in Kindeswohlverfahren (2000), p. 130 f.Google Scholar

(44) Art. 314 Swiss Civil Code; § 182b Austrian Law on Civil Procedures.Google Scholar

(45) Although in general due to the nature of the petition system some decisions of the European Court of Human Rights may be considered to be parental orientated rather than promoting the interests of the children concerned, some decisions – though they concern petitions of parents - strengthen the position of children in judicial proceedings. For example, in two cases which concerned contact of fathers with their children, the ECHR held that the process of hearing the children child had not been satisfactory and thus the rights of the fathers had been violated. See Sahin v. Germany, application no. 30943/96; Sommerfeld v. Germany, application no.31871/96; judgements 11 October 2001.Google Scholar

(46) s. 41 Children Act 1989.Google Scholar

(47) § 50 German Law on Non-Contentious Matters.Google Scholar

(48) Zitelmann, Die Vormundschaft aus Sicht von Mündeln. In: Hansbauer (ed.), Neue Wege in der Amtsvormundschaft (2002), p. 54 (68 f).Google Scholar

(49) See: Zenz, Kontakt, Kontinuität, Kompetenz und Interessenvertretung ohne Interessenkonflikt. Anforderungen an die Vormundschaft aus Sicht der betroffenen Kinder. JAmt 2002, p. 222 (227)Google Scholar