2.15 CHILDREN’S RIGHTS Discrimination of fathers in court decisions? the only reason for the court’s reservation was the amount of agreed child support. A court settlement in the proceedings was reached much later which did not significantly change the amount of child support. Considering that some complainants stated to the Ombudsman that they concluded court settlements because of deception or various pressures, the Ombudsman recommends that court hearings be recorded, because in this way it would be possible to avoid false allegations about what happens in courtrooms. In the panel discussion, we also presented the results of our own analysis, which is published on our website, and here we summarise only some of the findings. With our analysis, we tried to find any indications of the alleged discrimination with respect to numerous relationships between mothers and fathers regarding final decisions on child custody. We again want to warn about the speed of proceedings, especially decisions on interim orders, especially if the proposal implies the reasons for an interim order, from which it is clear that any delay would be contrary to the interests of the child (for example, violence or other problems in the family). While examples where delays of this type were found were very rare, the purpose of an interim order, which can remain unfulfilled due to prolonged decision-making, needs to be emphasised. The analysis included all decisions of the Family Justice Department of Ljubljana District Court which became final in 2014 (989 decisions), and selected for review almost ten per cent (95 cases). Proceedings at the first instance usually took between six and eighteen months. The longest proceedings took a few days less than five years. The results of the analysis show that decisions on child custody are mainly taken by parents themselves (in 58 per cent of cases, parents reach an agreement in advance; in 37 per cent of cases an agreement is reached in the proceedings, and in 5 per cent of cases, child custody is awarded by a court). Only in one case in which the court decided on child custody did the parent’s interests conflict regarding child custody. The shortest non-litigious case from the sample was resolved in eleven days, and out of all proceedings, the fastest case was resolved in four days. Out of all 95 cases, the child was placed in the custody of the father in eight cases (eight per cent), of the mother in 71 cases (75 per cent), while in 15 cases (16 per cent) the court awarded joint custody. We believe that expert opinions should precisely define the number and duration of individual meetings with the expert. While the length or number of interviews certainly must not be a criterion for assessing the quality of an opinion, in the most complex cases, when it is very hard to make a decision, such information can help the parties in the judicial proceedings to assess an opinion. Among the cases in which parents proposed the content of the divorce agreement in advance (55), there were 10 cases (18 per cent) of joint custody, in 42 cases (76 per cent) the mother had custody and in three cases (five per cent) the father had custody. The analysis failed to shed light on all the data available in decision-making procedures in family affairs. It did point to a complex issue which cannot be resolved with drastic simplifications in descriptions of the situation or reasons for it. Among the cases in which an agreement between parents was reached only in proceedings (35), there were six cases (17 per cent) of joint custody, while in 25 cases (71 per cent) the mother had custody. In the five cases in which the court decided on custody with a ruling, the share of fathers who took custody was higher (20 per cent) than in the cases referred to in the preceding two paragraphs. Due to the small sample size, the result is statistically insignificant, and the specific circumstances of the cases outweigh it. Example What surprised us most in the results of the analysis is the exceptionally high share of court settlements in the field where much conflict had been found. At the same time, this considerably reduced the significance of the results in terms of seeking indications of the alleged discrimination by gender in the proceedings when authorities decide on child custody. Our analysis thus confirms only the most obvious – differences between genders in the implementation of child custody are highly noticeable. However, the analysis does not confirm the alleged discrimination by authorities, but it actually shows that the higher the rate at which authorities become involved in disagreements between parent, the higher the share of men who are awarded child custody, although it is also true that with an increased rate at which the authorities become involved, primarily in rare judgements, the reliability of the results declines due to the small sample size. What also needs to be emphasised is that the analysis does not prove either that there is no alleged discrimination by gender, while it does prove that generalised allegations that female judges and female social workers award custody of all children to mothers do not hold true. At the same time, it is also true that it is obvious that, however the data are interpreted, mothers in general have a great advantage in society when it comes to child custody, while fathers express less interest in having custody of the child (if the 55 cases of agreement reached in advance is deducted from the total number of 95 cases, out of the 40 cases, custody was requested by 15 fathers and 35 mothers). Fathers probably have a more difficult task in proving that they are the more suitable to have custody, but proving such discrimination would require a considerably more precise study of cases in which the wishes of mothers and fathers conflict and child custody is decided by a court. In most cases, court settlement is probably the best solution of such disputes. In all the files we examined, we found only one case in which the court did not allow a court settlement between the parents. However, 152 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 Only a court can decide on contacts between parents and children in custody The Ombudsman is still encountering problems in the implementation of contacts between parents and children who removed from them by a social work centre. We already pointed out this problem in the 2011 annual report. When a social work centre removes a child from his or her parents, talks start about when and how contacts between the parents and the child should take place. The wishes and readiness of the parents as well the needs of the child should be considered. Parents and children usually do not have contacts immediately after children are separated, after which contact is established gradually. When contact starts and to what extent is decided by social work centres, although they have no legal authority to do this. Due to the absence of a legal basis, social work centres usually do not issue decisions regarding contacts, which is why parents cannot exercise direct legal protection. Social work centres believe that they do not decide on contact, as they only negotiate with parents about contact, and at the same time social work centres inform parents about the possibility of asking a court to decide this matter. The Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Affairs sent a circular letter to all social work centres in 2011 about determining and implementing contacts in cases when children are taken away from their parents in which it warned social work centres about the need to submit a proposal to a court to determine the scope or limits of contacts. We repeat our warning that any decision on contact between parents and children taken from them by a social work centre, which has no authority to do so, is an encroachment on the rights of children and parents if a proposal for a suitable arrangement of contact is not filed with a court at the same time, including a proposal for an interim order if necessary. 11.3-17/2015 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 153 2.15 CHILDREN’S RIGHTS discussion, we also wanted to shed light on the question to which many fathers, who feel discriminated against in all proceedings related to divorce, have drawn our attention. The affected parties believe that mothers are privileged in decision-making proceedings before state bodies and bodies exercising public powers regarding the awarding of custody.