Facts
The applicants, [A.A.] and [B.A.] , mother and daughter, request the annulment of the judgment of the Cantonal Court of Basel-Landschaft, Division of Constitutional and Administrative Law, of 25 October 2017, which confirmed the extension of [B.A.] 's placement in a youth home until 31 July 2018.
The [A.] family came to Switzerland in 2013 and took up residence in [V.] . After the husband and father committed an act of violence against the other family members in 2014, the Child and Adult Protection Authority (KESB) was involved. In November 2014, a guardianship was established for [B.A.] . After [B.A.] became violent towards her family, threatened suicide, was absent from school, exhibited self-harming behavior, and showed alcohol problems, [A.A.] 's right to determine her daughter's place of residence was withdrawn and [B.A.] was placed in the [C.] home.
Several changes of stations and departments followed, until the KESB [U.] ordered the admission to the [D.] youth home on 7 April 2017, effective 10 April 2017. An appeal filed by [B.A.] against this decision was dismissed by the Cantonal Court of Basel-Landschaft on 10 May 2017.
The KESB [U.] ordered the extension of the placement in the [D.] youth home until 31 July 2018, provisionally in the semi-closed living group, on 21 September 2017. Appeals filed by [A.A.] and [B.A.] against this decision were consolidated and dismissed by the Cantonal Court with judgment of 25 October 2017.
Considerations
The Federal Court has considered the appeal in civil matters against the judgment of the Cantonal Court of Basel-Landschaft of 25 October 2017. The applicants have argued that the extension of [B.A.] 's placement in a youth home until 31 July 2018 is unlawful, as the situation has improved both for the daughter and the mother, and the daughter can live with her mother again.
The Federal Court has found that the cantonal authorities had to weigh, based on a correctly established set of facts, whether in the specific case the child or the minor is endangered in their development and whether this endangerment can be averted or at least significantly reduced through supervised education. The Federal Court has also found that placement in an institution is only permissible if, in view of the specific child-related endangerment, it can provide the child with the necessary help in solving their problems, so that there is a prospect of directing their development into orderly channels.
The Federal Court has dismissed the appeal, insofar as it was…