fundamental and human rights �.� national preventive mechanism against torture of the children’s social relations and punishments in the form of segregated dining (1353/2018). The residential school was required to ensure that the social worker in charge of the child’s affairs will always be notified of the child’s isolation without delay (1353/2018). The Deputy-Ombudsman recommended installing a clock in the isolation room of one unit so that the child would have the opportunity to keep track of the time. He also suggested purchasing a thicker, more bed-like mattress for the isolation room (1353/2018). In the interview of one child, it turned out that the child had been forced to sleep in a bare isolation room resembling a jail cell for three nights after the end of the child’s isolation. The Deputy-Ombudsman found the practice to be degrading and strictly reminded the residential school of its duty to arrange safe foster care for the children (356/2018). The child welfare unit was required to make sure that no outside persons participate in the isolation of children. The Deputy-Ombudsman recommended the unit to take urgent measures to move the isolation room to more suitable premises (4099/2018*). Restrictions on communication The Child Welfare Act states that foster care must safeguard the continuous and safe relationships that are important for the child’s development. If an agreement on communication cannot be reached, communication between the child and the people close to the child can only be restricted on grounds specifically provided for in the Child Welfare Act. The authority to make such decisions lies with the social worker – not the place of foster care. The restriction of communication always requires a decision subject to appeal. In her opinions, the Deputy-Ombudsman has stressed that, if a child’s freedom of movement has been restricted in a manner that also restricts the child’s right to previously agreed-upon contact – such as a scheduled home visit – each such situation requires a specific assessment of whether 98 Seclusion facilities in the Pohjolakoti Residential School. the legal grounds for making a decision to restrict communications are in place (356 and 1353/2018). The child’s mobile phone cannot be confiscated by the institution as a precautionary or punitive measure. The Child Welfare Act does not give the director of the institution the jurisdiction to make decisions on continuing the restriction of communications (1353/2018). The children’s agreed-upon home visits cannot be cancelled with a simple verbal announcement. A decision to move or cancel a home visit always requires consulting the social worker in charge of the child’s affairs (4099/2018*). Restricting the freedom of movement A child’s freedom of movement is being restricted if, in addition to generally acceptable boundaries related to normal upbringing, the child is prevented from leaving the institution or deprived of the