PART II PART I CANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS OMBUDSMAN FOR CHILDREN However, the Chancellor found that Paldiski town government had not sufficiently guaranteed the welfare and safety of the petitioner’s grandchild. Namely, in communication with the petitioner the child protection workers of Paldiski town government had repeatedly pointed out that in order to ensure all-round development and social communication of the child the child should attend a kindergarten. However, in the opinion of the town government, the petitioner (the child’s grandmother) was responsible that the child did not attend a kindergarten. The Chancellor drew the attention of the town government to the fact that the child’s grandmother had no right of custody and the resulting right of representation in respect of the child. The responsibility for the child’s welfare was on Paldiski town government. Thus, Paldiski town government in its function as the guardian had to ensure that the child was attending a kindergarten. 12. Violating the right of decision-making of a parent in the provision of social services PART IV PART III Case No 7-5/121317 The Chancellor verified whether the activities of Jõelähtme rural municipality government complied with the principle of guaranteeing fundamental rights and freedoms when providing social services to the petitioner’s child against the petitioner’s will. In the course of the proceedings, it was found that Jõelähtme rural municipality government had placed the petitioner’s son to live with a third person. The petitioner had agreed that the son could stay with the third person for three months. Before the arrival of the term, the petitioner sent a letter to the municipality government withdrawing their earlier consent and expressing the wish to raise their son themselves in the future. The municipality government did not take the petitioner’s wish into account and continued to conclude agreements with the third person concerning the issues of organising the child’s life. As a result of the proceedings, the Chancellor concluded that Jõelähtme rural municipality government had failed to comply with the principle of guaranteeing the petitioner’s fundamental rights and freedoms by organising the life of the petitioner’s child without taking into account the wishes of the parent. On this basis, the Chancellor recommended to Jõelähtme rural municipality government in the future in situations where the welfare of a child is at risk but the parent who has custody of the child, or any other legal representative, refuses from the measures offered for eliminating the risk, to have recourse to the court under the Family Law Act for implementing the necessary measures. The Chancellor also recommended in the future, when providing assistance to people, to proceed from the principle of case management and draw up a case management plan for a person in need of long-term assistance, as required under the Social Welfare Act. 13. Organising contacts between a parent and child Case No 7-5/130764 On the basis of a petition, the Chancellor verified whether Tallinn Lasnamäe District Administration complied with the principle of guaranteeing fundamental rights and freedoms when organising communication between a parent and child after the child’s separation from the family. 52 In the course of the proceedings, it was found that the petitioner had been deprived of the rights of custody in respect of the child by a court ruling while the right of contact had not been