3. Activities of local authorities in organising the life of children in alternative care The organisation of visiting rights in a situation where the child lives in a substitute home in Estonia while the parent lives abroad arose as a separate issue during the reporting year. The Chancellor was contacted by a parent living abroad whose right of custody in respect of the child living in Estonia had been restricted by the court while the visiting rights had not been restricted. The petitioner wished that the child would stay with them during the school holidays. Kohtla-Järve City Government as the guardian and organiser of the welfare of the child did not allow the child to a foreign country without a written reasoned opinion of child protection workers of the parent’s country of residence. The main issue was whether Kohtla-Järve City Government may impose conditions on the child’s going abroad or to prohibit it in a situation where the court has not restricted the visiting rights of the parent in respect of the child. As a result of the supervisory proceedings the Chancellor found that in deciding whether to allow the child on a visit to the parent Kohtla-Järve City Government acted within its competence under the legislation. A child’s guardian and legal representative may decide the child’s place of stay and, thus, decide whom the child may visit. The obligation to ask the guardian’s consent for taking a child to the family does not constitute violation of the visiting rights of the parent. The wish of Kohtla-Järve City Government to receive an opinion of the child protection workers of the parent’s country of residence was also lawful. For the exercise of the visiting rights, a parent should request a permission from the local authority of their place of residence. If the parent’s residence is not in Estonia, they have to ask the permission from the competent authority of the foreign country. The Chancellor explained to the petitioner that such international cooperation concerning child protection is regulated by the Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable, Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children and in Estonia the coordinator of the cooperation is the Ministry of Justice. The Chancellor also verified lawfulness of the activities of local authorities in connection with the reorganisation of alternative care in respect of a child. The Chancellor was contacted by a minor receiving the substitute home service whom Tartu City Government decided to transfer from the substitute home to a shelter. Neither prior nor subsequent to the decision Tartu City Government tried to contact the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner was not aware of the change of their residence, the location of their documents or whether their rights upon starting independent life after the stay in a shelter would be the same as after the stay in the substitute home. As a result of the proceedings, the Chancellor found that Tartu City Government had violated the duty to involve the petitioner who was a minor in the reorganisation of their alternative care, including informing the petitioner, hearing their opinion and preparing them for the changes in the organisation of their life. On this basis, the Chancellor recommended to Tartu City Government to explain to the petitioner their rights, as well as the duties of the city government, upon the attainment of the age of majority by the petitioner, and explain which of the petitioner’s documents were at the possession of Tartu City Government. The Chancellor also recommended to Tartu City 53