30 | Annual Report 2018 Concluding remarks in the Randers case ‘On the basis of my review of the four selected cases about returns of children and young people in care outside their home which I have received and the municipality’s statements, it is my opinion that the municipality’s processing of the cases was overall a matter for severe criticism. Children and young people placed in care outside their home are often vulnerable. Frequently, they do not have the same support from parents and family as other children and young people. They may have interests which are contrary to those of the parent, and they may be in a conflict of loyalty. It is therefore very important that the authorities deal with their cases in accordance with legislation and ensure that they are given the special rights which follow from that. These are, among others, the right to receive a revised action plan prior to their return, the right to be included through child consultations and the right (once they are over the age of 12) to be notified of the decision to return them to their home, which in my opinion should be in writing – or very quickly afterwards be confirmed in writing to the child or young person – and, in accordance with sections 22-25 of the Public Administration Act, be accompanied by grounds for the decision and guidance on appeal.’ Published on 7 November 2018 Case No. 2018-33 FOB 2018-33 En kommune havde begået væsentlige sagsbehandlingsfejl i fire sager om hjemgivelse af anbragte børn og unge Back in November 2016, we at the Ombudsman institution were contacted by three members of Randers Municipal Council in regard to the municipality’s ‘Action Plan for Economic Stabilisation of Family Sector 2.0’. The three local council members were concerned about the action plan’s consequences for, among others, children placed in care outside their home. We did not go into the action plan itself in any detail, among other things because it stated expressly that every action had to be ‘within the framework of the legislation regarding the field’. And that, for instance, decisions to return children to their home must be ‘professionally sound to carry out’. But in order to ensure that that was actually so, we did ask for a list of cases from the first six months of 2017 involving the return to their homes of children and young people placed in care. Of those cases, we chose to review four as a random check. The result was not good. In the Ombudsman institution, we do not have the expert knowledge needed to assess whether it was in the final analysis the right decision for the children to be returned to their home. But we could see that important case processing requirements had not been observed. Among other things, we could not see that consultations had been held with the children before the decisions to return them, such as the Social Services Act prescribes. Nor could we see that the action plans for the children – also prescribed by the Act – had been revised before their return. Again, you could ask whether this is really so important. Is it not just paperwork? If the decision to return the child is the right one, then everything is surely all right, is it not? The answer to that is that the two things cannot be separated. Because rules such as those