Chancellor can verify the activities of local authorities which took place prior to the separation of the child from the family, as well as the activities in organising the life of children separated from their family, in the meaning of § 25(2) of the Social Welfare Act. On the basis of a petition, the Chancellor verified the activities of Tallinn Mustamäe City District Government in organising the life of children after their separation from the family. In this case, the local authority had separated the children from the family, the parent’s right of custody had been suspended under a court ruling and the local authority had been appointed as the guardian of the children. Thus, in addition to the obligation under § 25(2) of the Social Welfare Act to organise the life of the children after separation from the family, the city district government now also had the obligation under the court ruling and § 179(1) of the Family Law Act to take care of the petitioner’s children and organise their care and raising. The Chancellor was contacted by a biological parent of the children who was dissatisfied with the local authority’s activities in organising the life of the children, more specifically with the fact that the children were not given an opportunity to attend kindergarten and that the children were separated from each other. As a result of the proceedings, the Chancellor found that the local authority had violated the principle of acting in the best interests of the child under § 3 of the Republic of Estonia Child Protection Act in combination with the requirements of § 25(2) of the Social Welfare Act as it failed to ensure the opportunity for the child separated from the family to continue attending the kindergarten, and as a result failed to ensure continuity in the organisation of the child’s life for a period of three months as of the child’s separation from the family, and also failed to provide reasoning why it was in the interests of the child not to attend kindergarten. In the opinion of the Chancellor, the local authority also violated its obligation under § 25(3) of the Social Welfare Act to keep children originating from the same family together upon separation from the family, and failed to justify why it was in the interests of the children to be separated. The Chancellor explained to the local authority that failure to comply with this obligation could not be justified with the wish of a biological parent of the children to place the children in different shelters, in particular taking into account that according to the local authority’s own assessment the biological parent of the children was unable to ensure the interests of the children and the local authority had been appointed as the guardian of the children. In this case, also the issue of restricting the visiting rights arose. The local authority restricted the visiting rights of the parent during the first weeks of the child’s stay in the shelter. The Chancellor found that the local authority had restricted the visiting rights of the mother and child without a legal basis. Under § 143(3) of the Family Law Act only the court may restrict the visiting rights. The Chancellor also explained that visiting rights are a separate legal institution as compared to the right of custody, and restriction, suspension or deprivation of the right of custody does not affect the visiting rights of the parent in respect of the child. Prompted by a petition concerning separation of a child from the family, the Chancellor also made an unannounced visit to Tallinn Children’s Home shelter for small children in order to assess the living conditions of children separated from their families. The Chancellor was contacted by a biological parent of the children who complained about living conditions in the shelter for small children of Tallinn Children’s Home, in particular the fact that the children could not sleep in their own beds. 50