Facts
The parties [A.] (appellant, father) and [C.] married in 2012 and are the parents of the daughter [D.] (born 2012). The spouses separated in 2013; the mother has since lived with the child in [U.] and initiated marital protection proceedings, which are still pending before the Cantonal Court of St. Gallen.
By decision of 7 August 2014, the family judge of the District Court of St. Gallen modified the father's right of access, ordered supervised visits and established a beistandship under Art. 308 para. 2 CC to supervise personal contact and the handover. The Child and Adult Protection Authority Region St. Gallen (KESB) appointed [B.] (respondent) as beistand.
On 8 January 2016, the father requested the discharge of the beistand; the KESB refused. The Administrative Appeals Commission (VRK) upheld the appeal on 1 March 2017, discharged the beistand and instructed the KESB to appoint a new beistand. [E.] was appointed as the new beistand. The former beistand was required to submit the final report for the period from 4 September 2014 to 1 March 2017.
The KESB approved the final report on 8 August 2017 and discharged the beistand under Art. 425 para. 4 CC.
The VRK initially did not entertain the father's appeal (decision of 27 December 2018). Following remittal by the Cantonal Court, the VRK dismissed the appeal on 17 September 2019. The Cantonal Court of St. Gallen, single judge in family law matters, upheld the cantonal appeal on 15 October 2020 and set aside the VRK decision. It affirmed that the final report was incomplete (lack of a current account of the child's status, lack of information on visitation contacts and on the father's housing situation), but refrained from amending it, since the past could not be changed and an instruction for the future was sufficient.
By civil law appeal of 23 November 2020, the father requested the annulment of operative paragraph 2 of the Cantonal Court's judgment, the annulment of the decision of 8 August 2017, the refusal to approve the final report and the refusal to discharge the beistand; in the alternative, remittal to the Cantonal Court. The Federal Supreme Court did not obtain any responses.
Considerations
The civil law appeal is admissible against a final decision of a higher cantonal court acting as an appellate authority (Art. 72 para. 2 lit. b no. 6, Art. 75, Art. 90, Art. 100 para. 1 FSCA). This is a non-pecuniary matter. The standing under Art. 76 FSCA is given, since the father took part in the cantonal proceedings and has a protectable interest in amendment, because the Cantonal Court did not fully grant his request for refusal to approve the report (consid. 1).
The Federal Supreme Court reviews the alleged violation of law with free cognition, applies the law of its own motion (Art. 106 para. 1 FSCA), but is bound by the established facts (Art. 105 para. 1 FSCA) and only examines complaints that are adequately substantiated in form (Art. 42 para. 2 FSCA). Complaints concerning the facts must demonstrate arbitrariness and show that the outcome is affected (Art. 97 para. 1 FSCA). Appellatory criticism is inadmissible (consid. 2).
The complaint of arbitrariness (Art. 9 Cst.) and violation of the child's welfare (Art. 12 ECHR) based on the failure to amend the final report is unfounded. A deficient final report is in principle amendable by supplementation (Art. 415 para. 2 in conjunction with Art. 425 para. 2 CC). However, the appellant fails for lack of a protectable interest in such supplementation: his submissions regarding incomplete investigations by the current beistand are mere assertions and would have to be raised in separate proceedings against her reports. The pending marital protection…