CASES | 29 Case No. 19/01698 An inmate in a state prison had written to a company and applied for a job after his release. The company addressed the prison and asked not to be contacted by the inmate after which the prison ordered the inmate not to contact potential employers. After this, the inmate complained to the Ombudsman that the prison did not reply to his complaint about the order. The Ombudsman wrote this to the prison and asked for a copy of the prison’s reply to the inmate. The case was considered by the regional office of the Prison and Probation Service which the prison fell under. The regional office did not find that the prison could lay down rules on whether the inmate was allowed to contact the company or other potential employers. Therefore, the regional office expressed its regret at the prison’s order. There are a number of cases about state and local prisons at the Ombudsman institution. In 2019, the Ombudsman concluded approximately 360 cases pertaining to inmates’ conditions in state and local prisons. In addition, the Ombudsman’s visiting teams visited 18 institutions under the Prison and Probation Service. Case No. 17/02913 A man had had to pay legal fees in a court case in which he had filed a lawsuit in France against his former employer. The man found he was entitled to a full tax deduction for the fees. However, the Danish Tax Agency and a tax and assessment appeals board decided that he was eligible only to a proportionate deduction. The tax authorities based their decision on the ruling and the man’s own information about the court case. The man complained to the Ombudsman who asked the tax authorities some questions about the deduction and about the ruling. In its reply, the appeals board stated that it was now prepared to reopen the man’s case. After this, the Ombudsman closed the case. The Ombudsman usually closes his investigation when the authorities reopen the case. Case No. 19/04649 ‘How in the world can this be in the child’s best interest?’ A citizen asked the Ombudsman this question after the municipality had decided that a boy, whom the citizen had known for many years, no longer was to stay with his foster family. Instead, the boy was to live with his biological mother. The citizen strongly disagreed with the municipality’s decision and was deeply concerned about the boy’s future well-being. The Ombudsman wrote to the citizen that he was sending the citizen’s letter of concern about the boy on to the National Social Appeals Board, which monitors the children’s sector and considers appeals concerning children. Meanwhile, the Ombudsman could not inform the citizen further about the case even though the citizen knew the boy well. This was due to the fact that the citizen did not have parental responsibility for the child. Each year, the Ombudsman is contacted by citizens who are concerned about children’s well-being – for instance former foster parents. If a citizen who contacts the Ombudsman does not have parental responsibility for the child in question, he or she is not legally a party to the child’s case and is therefore not entitled to receive information about further steps in the case.