CANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS OMBUDSMAN FOR CHILDREN PART IV PART III PART II PART I the impact on the petitioner, stopping of the payment also affected their child for whose care and development the support was intended. Fourth, the rural municipality did not deliver the decision to stop the payment (a burdensome administrative act) to the petitioner in accordance with the law. The municipality delivered it electronically without having complied with the conditions for electronic delivery laid down by the Administrative Procedure Act. Due to the above violations, the Chancellor proposed to Rae rural municipality to apologise to the petitioner and pay them the support for the toddler at home which had been withheld in October 2012. The Chancellor also recommended to the municipality to improve the legal awareness of the rural municipality government, check the knowledge of administrative procedure requirements among the municipality officials and offer them appropriate training. 5. Placement of a child in a special care home Case No 7-4/130602 In 2013, the Chancellor verified the activities of the Social Insurance Board in placing a petitioner’s child in Võisiku Home for the receipt of special care service under a court ruling. The care home did not have an environment suitable for the child and the child’s health and life were repeatedly at risk. Under the Social Welfare Act, on the basis of a court ruling 24-hour special care service may be provided to person regardless of their age, i.e. including to a minor. The provision of the service is organised by the Social Insurance Board which also decides the referral of a person to a particular care home. The Chancellor expressed the opinion that in view of the fact that the Act gives the Social Insurance Board the possibility to decide how to organise the provision of the 24-hour care service on the basis of a court ruling, the Social Insurance Board is responsible that the service should be developed in a way as to ensure the rights of the persons receiving the service. However, at the time of the above incident there was not a single care home whose 24-hour special care service would have been suitable for minors. The Chancellor in his opinion explained that although the Social Welfare Act does not include any specific requirements establishing what the 24-hour service provided under a court ruling should look like, the requirements can be found in other legislation and international documents which Estonia is obliged to comply with. First, availability of staff with relevant training must be ensured. A child should be separated from adults (in particular from adults with mental disorders), except if this is contrary to the interests of the child. It must also be ensured that the child can engage in suitable activities contributing to their development, they must have opportunities to spend free time in a suitable manner. As far as possible, the child must live in a smaller group in a safe environment which is as family-like as possible and where they can also be in privacy. It is important that the child is ensured access to education. None of these requirements had been complied with in Võisiku Home. The Chancellor also drew the attention of the Social Insurance Board to the fact that in addition to the above conditions the Board must constantly verify on its own initiative whether the service is still suitable for the child and fulfils its purpose. In this case, no such own-initiative verification took place. 48 In view of all the above, the Chancellor found that the Social Insurance Board had failed to comply with the principle of ensuring the fundamental rights and freedoms when placing the child in a special care home but did not give guidelines on what kind of service is suitable for the child and did not assess systematically and regularly the suitability of the service being provided. The Chancellor recommended to the Social Insurance Board in the future to organise the 24-hour