2.13 SOCIAL MATTERS The Ombudsman discussed the case of a lengthy procedure for appointing a legal guardian in the special case of a woman who was in the process of being evicted. A local court asked the social work centre to appoint the defendant in the contentious proceedings a guardian for a special case. The centre had asked the woman’s personal physician, who was to be appointed her guardian, for his opinion or a statement as to whether the woman was able to claim her own benefits, assert rights and interests, express her will and take individual legal actions in the case, or whether another person should be authorised on her behalf; however, the physician did not respond to the centre’s request. The centre failed to take any other action; it informed the court twice at the court’s request that the procedure was still ongoing and that a medical statement was expected, and asked the court to forward such statement if it had received it already. In the meantime, the court appointed a temporary legal guardian on the basis of paragraph one of Article 82 of the Civil Procedure Act, of which the centre had not been informed until the Ombudsman informed it thereof while discussing the case. Two and a half years had passed since the court asked the centre to appoint a guardian for a special case. The centre informed us that it would verify with the court whether the appointment of the guardian for a special case was still needed. The Ombudsman assessed that the procedure for appointing a guardian for a special case was unacceptably lengthy, particularly due to the centre’s passivity, and determined that the centre was obliged to determine whether its action was required notwithstanding the physician’s activity, or the centre should have informed the court that the centre’s action was not needed. 2.13.6 P  reventing contacts between relatives is a form of violence against the elderly Complainants wrote to the Ombudsman because their sister had been preventing their contact with their elderly mother, with whom the sister lived and took care of, for a lengthy period. Due to dementia, their mother’s legal capacity had been revoked in full, and the tasks of the (then temporary) guardian were conducted by the social work centre. Unfortunately, this is not the only case in which a person who is taking care of an elderly relative with dementia has rendered impossible or even prevented contacts with other relatives. Family disputes and self-interest can always be detected in the background, while the rights, benefits and interest of the elderly relative who is fully dependent on the care and help of others are somehow forgotten. This is also a form of violence against the elderly, and the Ombudsman is certain that discussion of such cases demands special diligence. The suitability of care must also be assessed in terms of maintaining the social network and meeting the non-material needs of people in care. 2.13.7 Institutional care In the 2014 annual report (recommendation no. 100), the Ombudsman recommended that the Government prepare a programme to expand the capacities of occupational activity centres and enable persons affected to participate in in the service of guidance, care and employment under special conditions. The Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (MDDSZ) informed us that guidance, care and employment under special conditions for adults with mental and physical disorders were being implemented in 2015, and will be provided by public and private institutions with suitable concessions within a public network to a greater extent than in 2014, i.e. 70 persons were included in this service at public institutions. The MDDSZ also stated: “The MDDSZ agrees with the Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia that the preparation of a programme to expand the capacities of occupational activity centres is urgent, and it is necessary that sufficient financial resources be provided from the budget of the Republic of Slovenia for proposed inclusions within the measures provided and anticipated. On the basis of a review of persons waiting to participate in the guidance, care and employment under special conditions, the expansion by 150 places was anticipated within the draft budget. The expansion of the service will extend to approximately 25 per cent of all persons on the waiting list.” In 2015, we received no new complaints regarding the relevant issue, and therefore believe that preliminary assessments on the needs for inclusion in occupational activity centres were also the result of uncoordinated records of the persons concerned. The complainants also asked the centre for help, which managed to conclude an agreement with all children about when and in what way contacts or visits would take place. The centre’s expert worker was even present during a few visits. The situation became complicated after a few months, when it was impossible to visit on an agreed day and also later. The complainants blamed their sister, while she rejected the complaints. The centre had no reason to believe that the daughter who took care of the mother would in any way intentionally prevent contact between the mother and other children, and the provision of care, the suitability of which was questioned by the complainants, was assessed as suitable. It must not be overlooked that the children were in dispute over an inheritance contract and that they all (and the centre) admitted that they were in conflict and that communication between them was poor. The Ombudsman proposed that the centre examine the possibility of organising and enabling contacts somewhere else if the temporary guardian was unable to ensure visits at the mother’s home, and if necessary also provide transport for the mother to the location of the visit. We believed that the children had the right to contact with their mother (and vice versa) and that she alone could decide on such contacts. In the role of temporary guardian, the centre may object to contacts, but only if it is assessed that these are harmful to the person in care. The centre replied to our proposal that transport of the person in care was not possible or would not be beneficial to her because she was bedridden, disoriented and unable to express anything, and such transport would worsen her medical condition. We informed the complainants of the centre’s reply, and explained that they could submit a request to the centre to transfer their mother to institutional care, which would allow them to visit her regularly. We suggested that they contact the centre if they again thought that their mother was not being suitably taken care of by their sister. If their complaints about the care had been justified, the centre could and would have to take action. 140 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 141 2.13 SOCIAL MATTERS Social work centre failed to appoint a legal guardian in a special case in two years