Facts
The appellant is the mother of child C., born on May 9, 2014. Before the birth, the presumed father of the child and the midwife informed the Child and Adult Protection Authority (CPPB) about the difficult living conditions in which the pregnant appellant intended to live with the newborn. The CPPB conducted an unannounced home visit but was unable to gain insight into the living conditions.
By decision of May 9, 2014, the CPPB immediately and provisionally revoked the appellant's custody of her child, provisionally placed the child in the maternity ward of the cantonal hospital, established a guardianship for the child, and designated the guardian and their duties. The CPPB stated that due to the special urgency, a precautionary decision was made without hearing the child's mother and father, but that they would be given the opportunity to comment and a new decision would be made if necessary.
The appellant filed a complaint against the CPPB's decision and requested that the contested decision be revoked. The Cantonal Court dismissed the complaint, whereupon the appellant filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court states that the procedure for issuing precautionary measures must be concluded by a formal decision of the child protection authority. In the event that the child protection authority takes a precautionary measure immediately and without hearing the parties involved, the law mandatorily requires the child protection authority to simultaneously give the parties involved the opportunity to comment and then make a new decision.
The Federal Supreme Court finds that the CPPB has…