Federal court rules: Kesb was allowed to take the baby away from a single mother

class=”sc-cffd1e67-0 iQNQmc”>

The Federal Court dismissed the woman’s complaint. However, they should have more personal contact with their child.

The woman, who lives alone, had undergone artificial insemination in Denmark. The baby was born prematurely at the University Hospital (CHUV) Lausanne VD. Hospital staff noted that the mother had difficulty recognizing and responding to the child’s needs. The woman also had difficulty understanding and implementing the advice of the nursing staff.

For this reason, a specialized team of doctors went to the Lausanne Peace Court and the Child Protection Authority three days after the birth. The authorities ordered the urgent temporary placement of the child in the maternity ward of the CHUV. This is evident from a ruling by the Federal Court published on Wednesday.

Child placed in home

A few days later, the Justice of the Peace issued an urgent order denying the mother the right to determine the child’s place of residence. The court granted the Directorate General of Childhood and Youth of the Canton of Vaud (DGEJ) a provisional mandate to house and care for the child, who had been placed in a home.

The Justice of the Peace ultimately decided to maintain the precautionary measures. It was based on several reports and interviews with several people, including the mother and her sister.

The subdistrict court of the canton of Vaud rejected the woman’s appeal against this decision in October 2023. There was also a medical certificate from the psychiatrist who had examined the woman twice and a statement from the DGEJ.

More contacts are needed

In its ruling, the Federal Court ruled that the external placement was proportionate. A less drastic measure such as assistance did not have to be preferred. The DGEJ and the Justice of the Peace had already ruled out 24-hour assistance for the mother, because that would have required three nurses.

The task of the DGEJ is to gradually create a lasting relationship between mother and child. This required more frequent physical contact than was previously possible: there were two supervised visits per week.

This restriction was justified by organizational problems, which the Federal Court does not accept because it concerns the restriction of parental rights through long-term external placement. (SDA)

Source:Blick