Facts

Parties: The appellant is the wife of [B.A.] , who is subject to a representation curatorship. The respondent is the Child and Adult Protection Authority (KESB) of the Canton of Schaffhausen. The lower instance was the Higher Court of the Canton of Schaffhausen.

Subject matter: Approval of reports and accounts (Art. 410, 411, 415, 425 CC) of curators.

Facts:

  • On 1 April 2014 the KESB established a representation curatorship with income and asset management for [B.A.] (Art. 394 para. 1 in conjunction with Art. 395 CC). The first curator was [C.] (professional curatorship [U.] ).
  • On 9 March 2016 the mandate holder was changed to [D.] (professional curatorship [V.] ). On 7 March 2017 the scope of tasks was extended to housing and health. On 21 March 2017 the KESB appointed [E.] as the new curator.
  • By decision of 14 August 2019 the KESB approved the report on activities and the accounts of [E.] for 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2018 and awarded her remuneration of CHF 5,000.-- and expenses of CHF 400.--. The remuneration was imposed on [B.A.] , whose indigence was established and for whom free legal aid was granted.
  • On the same day the KESB approved the final report and final accounts of [C.] for 2014-2016 and discharged him.
  • The appellant's appeal against these decisions was dismissed by the Higher Court by decision of 5 May 2020, insofar as it was admissible.
  • Proceedings before the Federal Supreme Court: By appeal in civil matters of 12 June 2020, the appellant requested that the Higher Court's decision be set aside and the matter remitted for supplementation of the facts. The Federal Supreme Court did not obtain any responses.
  • Complaints of the appellant: late approval of the final report and final accounts of [C.] ; late submission of [E.] 's report and non-receipt of an interim report; violation of the supervisory duty (Art. 415 CC) and of the prohibition of arbitrariness (Art. 9 Cst.); excessive remuneration of [E.] (24 instead of 12 months); recovery of CHF 14,755.40 and care costs; non-entry into the discharge of [D.] ; substantive defects in the report on activities (counterfactual presentation, medical report, reduced insurance benefits).

Considerations

Admissibility: The appeal in civil matters is directed against a final decision of a higher cantonal court acting as appellate instance concerning the approval of reports and accounts (Art. 72 para. 2 let. b no. 6, Art. 75, Art. 90, Art. 76 para. 1, Art. 100 para. 1 FSCA). The matter is at least partly not of a pecuniary nature. The merely rescissory request suffices, because the reasoning makes clear that non-approval is sought (Art. 107 para. 2 FSCA).

Scope of review and principle of complaint: The Federal Supreme Court applies the law of its own motion, examines with free review and bases its decision on the facts established by the lower instance (Art. 105 para. 1, Art. 106 para. 1 FSCA). The reasoning must be contained in the appeal itself (Art. 42 para. 2 FSCA). The appellant's own presentation of the facts is irrelevant, as no manifestly incorrect finding (arbitrariness) is alleged. Purely appellatory criticism is inadmissible.

Legal basis: The curator keeps accounts and submits them for approval periodically, at least every two years (Art. 410 CC); he reports (Art. 411 CC). The authority examines the accounts and report, approves them or requires correction or supplementation, and where necessary takes measures (Art. 415 CC). The final report and final accounts are examined in the same manner (Art. 425 CC).

Late approval (final report of [C.] ): A delay or refusal of justice can, after approval has taken place, be complained of only with a current interest in a declaratory ruling (BGE 125 V 373 consid. 1). Such an interest was not substantiated. The alleged impending limitation of third-party claims does not directly concern the appellant. The complaint is not entered into.

Late submission (report of [E.] ): The KESB had asked the curator to report and sent a reminder; the report arrived only on 17 May 2019. Awaiting parallel proceedings, which were initiated by the appellant herself and related to the management of the mandate, is not objectionable. The KESB learned of the state liability proceedings in June 2019, so the approval in August 2019 was timely. No violation of law. The complaint of arbitrariness due to lack of supervision fails, as the Higher Court correctly referred to the supervisory complaint as the remedy, which the appellant does not address.

Interim report: The allegedly ordered interim report is not the subject of the contested approval decisions and is therefore not examined.

Remuneration of [E.] : The appellant is at most indirectly affected by the possible obligation to pay back under cantonal law (§ 7 Schaffhausen Ordinance on Curator Remuneration). The change occurred during the ongoing two-year reporting period, [D.] was exempted from the final…