Dismissal of the appeal against the restriction of visitation rights

Facts

The appellant and the respondent are the unmarried parents of two children, [C.] (born 2008) and [D.] (born 2012). The parties originally had joint parental custody of [C.] , while the younger [D.] was under the sole parental custody of the mother. After the parties' separation in 2013, the children lived with the mother. The Child and Adult Protection Authority (KESB) established a guardianship pursuant to Art. 308 para. 2 CC.

In the context of a complex visitation rights dispute, the KESB commissioned an expert opinion from the cantonal child and adolescent psychiatric service, which was submitted on 7 May 2015. The expert opinion recommended sole allocation of parental custody to the mother and contained recommendations for the arrangement of visitation rights. The parents concluded an agreement on visitation rights on 18 May 2015, which the KESB confirmed by decision of 22 July 2015.

Despite this agreement, the appellant challenged the visitation rights arrangement and requested a new regulation. The Administrative Court of the Canton of Solothurn dismissed the appeal by judgment of 23 November 2015. The appellant then filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court, which was dismissed by judgment of 2 May 2016.

In the present case, the appellant requested the KESB to lift the contact and area ban, extend the visits to every Friday to Sunday, grant a minimum four-week holiday right, and allow additional telephone contacts. The KESB rejected these requests by decision of 20 December 2016 and ordered a supervised visitation right of three hours per month from 1 January 2017 for a period of six months.

The appellant filed an appeal with the Administrative Court of the Canton of Solothurn, which was dismissed by judgment of 15 May 2017. The appellant then filed an appeal in civil matters with the Federal Supreme Court.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court examined its jurisdiction and the admissibility requirements ex officio and with free cognition. The appellant is entitled to appeal, and the appeal period has been observed.

The Federal Supreme Court rejected the appellant's objection that the expert opinion was arbitrary. The expert opinion is careful and comprehensive and can be used as evidence. The appellant's criticism of the expert's…