PART IV PART III PART II PART I CANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS OMBUDSMAN FOR CHILDREN 8. Payment of the childbirth allowance in Haapsalu town Case No 7-5/120526 On the basis of a petition from an individual, the Chancellor verified the constitutionality of the „Procedure for the granting and payment of social benefits“ approved by Haapsalu Town Council regulation, to the extent as regards the payment of a childbirth allowance to a parent who permanently resides in Haapsalu town and was entered in the population register as an inhabitant of Haapsalu at least one year prior to the birth of the child. In the proceedings there was no dispute whether the local authority may establish as a precondition for the payment of a social benefit the requirement that according to the population register the residence of a recipient of the benefit must be in the territory of the respective local authority. The main issue in the proceedings was whether Haapsalu town has the right to establish as an additional precondition for the receipt of the childbirth allowance that the recipient of the allowance must actually live in Haapsalu town. As a result of the analysis, the Chancellor concluded that the additional precondition requiring the permanent residence of a person applying for the child birth allowance to be in Haapsalu town is in conformity with the Acts and the Constitution. In this regard, it is of decisive importance that the childbirth allowance is a benefit voluntarily (i.e. not under a statutory obligation) paid by a local authority and, in accordance with the autonomy of local authorities, each local authority may itself establish the preconditions for the payment of its voluntary benefits. 9. Registration of the birth and medical check-up of a child Case No 7-8/121241 The Chancellor verified on his own initiative the activities of Märjamaa rural municipality government after having learned of a six-month-old child in the municipality whom the parent had not registered in the population register and with whom the parent had not been to a medical check-up. In the course of the proceedings it was found that the rural municipality government took steps immediately after finding out about the child and took the child for a medical check-up even on the same day, and three days later contacted the court to establish the birth. In this regard, the municipality’s actions were exemplary. However, further steps by the municipality government were not as consistent. After the registration of the child’s birth and the initial medical check-up, the child protection specialist agreed with the mother that the mother would register the children in the practice list of a general practitioner and would take the children for regular health checks. The duty of the child protection specialist was to verify that these steps are actually implemented. The child protection specialist verified compliance with the agreements only more than half a year later than prescribed in the case management plan and only after the relevant enquiry by the Chancellor. On this basis, the Chancellor recommended to Märjamaa rural municipality government to pay more attention to the assessment of the planned and implemented activities when providing assistance to individuals. 50