The Chancellor also recommended in the future, in cases where the city district administration separates a child from the family before a court ruling, to immediately file an application with the court for restricting the parent’s rights in respect of the child. 14. Problems relating to rights of custody and representation of children separated from family On his own initiative, the Chancellor analysed the provisions of the Family Law Act concerning separation of a child from the family and division of the right of custody and representation of a separated child between a parent (legal representative) and the local authority carrying out the separation. As a result of the analysis, the Chancellor concluded that the Family Law Act does not regulate with sufficient clarity the representation of a child and the right of custody during the period when a child is separated from family, the local authority has recourse to the court and the court resolves the issue of the right of custody by way of preliminary legal protection. For example, the Family Law Act does not stipulate that in case of separation of a child from the family the local authority immediately assumes the right of representation of the child or that the local authority assumes the duties of the guardian in case of separation of a child. The Act also fails to stipulate the duty of local authorities upon recourse to the court to immediately request resolving of the right of representation by way of preliminary protection or the duty of the court to regulate these issues immediately (even if the local authority does not request this). Such a situation leads to practical problems when quick decisions with regard to a child have to be made, for example if the separated child is ill and a decision concerning the child’s treatment for which the consent of the child’s legal representative is needed has to be made. Under the Family Law Act, all the decisions concerning a child have to be made by the parent; at the same time a child could be separated from the family precisely for the reason that a parent fails to make adequate decisions (e.g. in the case of the above example, unreasonably refuses from the child’s treatment). PART II On this basis, the Chancellor proposed to the city district administration to create possibilities for contact between the petitioner and their daughter by providing them all-round assistance for this, or have recourse to the court to restrict the petitioner’s right of contact with the daughter. PART III The Chancellor concluded that Tallinn Lasnamäe District Administration had violated the principle of guaranteeing the fundamental rights and freedoms of the petitioner by refusing to create possibilities for contact between the petitioner and their daughter while also not having recourse to the court to restrict the petitioner’s right of contact with the daughter. PART IV restricted by the court. The petitioner had filed an appeal against the ruling on deprivation of the right of custody. The petitioner was in a custodial institution and wished to meet with the daughter and asked the assistance of Tallinn Lasnamäe District Administration for this. The city district administration refused to organise contacts between the petitioner and their daughter, referring to the court ruling which had not entered into effect but under which the petitioner was deprived of the right of custody in respect of the daughter. PART I CANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS OMBUDSMAN FOR CHILDREN The Chancellor described these problems in his opinion on the Draft Act for the Amendment of the Family Law Act (case No 18-2/130893). By now, the problems described by the Chancellor, which arise when a child is separated from the family, have been resolved in the Draft Act for the Amendment of the Child Protection Act initiated by the Ministry of Social Affairs. Under §  28 of the Draft Act, if a local authority separates a child from the family, the right of custody of the legal representative is suspended. The Chancellor has also submitted his opinion on the Draft Act. 53