In this decision, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, emphasising that the removal of an infant from its mother immediately after birth is an extreme measure that requires exceptional reasons.

 

The present case concerns the affairs of B.T., a woman of Roma ethnicity, and her son, B.K.Cs. Since 2010, the five eldest children of B.T. had been in temporary foster care. This was due to their irregular school attendance and insufficient medical treatment. Notwithstanding this antecedent circumstance, B.T.'s living conditions had undergone a substantial enhancement, characterised by the attainment of stable employment and the sharing of adequate accommodation with the children's father. However, when B.K.Cs. was born on 3 May 2014, the authorities prevented her from taking the newborn home. A mere four days later, on 7 May 2014, B.K.Cs. was placed in temporary foster care. The official reason provided by the authorities for this decision was the mother's "irresponsible" lifestyle and the potential risk to the child's development. The Strasbourg court acknowledged the pertinence of the justifications proffered by the national authorities. However, the court determined that these reasons were inadequate to justify such a significant intervention. The Court emphasised significant deficiencies in the decision-making process, underscoring the omission to deliberate less severe alternatives. The Court has reiterated its position that the removal of an infant from its mother against its will, immediately after birth and without the involvement of the infant's parents in the decision-making process, constitutes an extremely severe measure. The Court concluded that such action requires exceptionally compelling reasons to be justified.

 

Conversely, the Court conducted a meticulous examination of potential discrimination based on the Roma ethnic origin of the family, ultimately concluding that there had been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention. In this particular case, the Court found that the decision to remove the child was not motivated by the applicants' Roma origin. Instead, the authorities took action in what they perceived to be the best interests of the child, citing the mother's alleged negligence towards the other children. A meticulous examination of the documentation failed to reveal any indication that the ethnicity of the child or that of his family had been employed by the authorities as a justification for removal. Consequently, although the Court had previously established a violation of the right to respect for family life (due to the child's removal), it concluded that the information and objective evidence available was not sufficiently strong to prove that the authorities' conduct had been discriminatory.

 

(Comment by Laura Restuccia)