SUMMARIES OF SELECTED STATEMENTS The Ombudsman agreed that the citizen had violated the ban of March 2012 by showing up in person at the municipality in September 2012, but the Ombudsman did not think that this alone could justify a new ban. The Ombudsman was of the opinion that there was no case information which indicated that the citizen had behaved in a threatening manner or otherwise inappropriately in his contact with the municipality since the first episode in 2010. Hence, the Ombudsman did not find that the municipality had sufficient grounds for preventing the citizen from showing up in person at the municipal offices. The Ombudsman was of the opinion that the municipality should have made the decision that the ban of March 2012 was no longer valid and that the citizen was allowed to show up in person at the municipal offices as every other citizen. However, the Ombudsman did not find grounds for recommending that the municipality reprocess the case, since the municipality had informed him that the ban against the man showing up in person had by then expired. 2014-9. MUNICIPAL COST-CUTTING PLAN FOR CARE PLACEMENT GAVE THE OMBUDSMAN REASON FOR GRAVE CONCERN ABOUT THE MOST VULNERABLE CHILDREN’S LEGAL RIGHTS In November 2013, the Ombudsman received anonymous information regarding planned cost-cutting for care placements in Guldborgsund Municipality. It appeared from the information that the municipality’s case workers were asked to go through all their placement cases and divide them into three categories – A, B and C. Afterwards, the case workers were to contact the facilities where the children were placed in order to effect a cost reduction of 10-15 per cent of the existing price. In case they failed to do so, the child was to be brought back to the municipality or a cheaper facility had to be found for the child. The objective of this process was to bring back the children or to shorten the placement by 30 per cent for the children in category A (children whose needs necessitated special, qualified action at a placement facility or 24-hour care facility) and also to take back 30-40 per cent of the placed children in category C (children placed in foster families). In addition to that, the municipality wanted to introduce a so-called minimum intervention principle when working with the placements. The anonymous information caused the Ombudsman to start a case in relation to Guldborgsund Municipality. 147