CCPR/C/128/D/2381/2014 9.2 The State party provides additional factual background to the communication. It indicates that the relationship between the author and the father was quarrelsome before the children were born. The parents took care of the children together before the author moved from their home in Itti to Pori on 27 April 2012. The State party notes that the Child Welfare authorities have examined the family’s matters on multiple occasions at the request of both the father and the author. The author reported a number of incidents of assaults and threats perpetrated by the father, while the father claimed that the author was the one who behaved violently. The State party recalls that between April 2012 and December 2013, the author prevented the father from seeing the children, in spite of the interim measures granted by Kymenlaakso District Court on 8 January 2013 requesting that the father be able to see his children under supervision. On 26 April 2013, Satakunta District Court decided that the father’s right of access should be enforced and the author should pay a fine for continuing to deny him access. The author’s appeals against both decisions were rejected. 9.3 After multiple petitions on both sides regarding the custody of the children, Kymenlaakso District Court requested an external specialist and a psychologist to assess the parenting skills of both parents and examine how the custody, place of residence and right of access should be arranged. On 4 December 2013, Kymenlaakso District Court issued a decision on the custody and right of access to the children, giving the parents joint custody until 30 April 2014 and, as of 1 May 2014, sole custody to the father, who lived in the municipality of Iitti. The father was able to see his children three times in December 2013 under supervision, but the author declared on 22 January 2014 that she would not agree to joint custody and would not hand the children over to their father on 1 May 2014. 9.4 On 1 April 2014, further to a petition from the father, Satakunta District Court ordered that an enforcement authority take the children to the meeting on 1 May 2014 for their move to Iitti. Meanwhile, the author appealed the decision of Kymenlaakso District Court before Eastern Finland Court of Appeal; her appeal was rejected on 12 June 2014. By its interim ruling of 16 May 2014, the Court of Appeal ordered a stay of execution of the Kymenlaakso District Court’s decision of 4 December 2013, ordering that the meetings between the children and their mother be supervised until 31 October 2014.7 After numerous child welfare notifications, the Child Welfare services placed the children in a childcare institution from 10 April 2014 to 2 May 2014, when the children moved in with their father in Iitti. The author appealed the decision on emergency placement and restrictions on the right of access before Turku Administrative Court, which rejected her appeal on 12 September 2014. The Supreme Administrative Court handed down its final decision on 25 August 2015. 9.5 On 29 April 2015, Kymenlaakso District Court decided, following an assessment by the Child Welfare services, that the meetings between the children and the author would be unsupervised, held in the form of weekend meetings, from Thursday to Sunday, in the author’s residence in Pori. 9.6 While the children were with the author in Pori from 10 to 13 September 2015, she allegedly detected a bruise on one of the children’s cheeks and took him to hospital for an examination. Given that the author accused the father of having struck the child, the doctor who examined the child reported the matter to the Pory City on-call Social Services, which filed a report to the police. After investigation, the authorities concluded that there was no need for an emergency placement of the children. The social workers noted that the relationship between the children and the father appeared affectionate and harmonious. 9.7 The State party reiterated that the communication should be declared inadmissible. The State party argues that the author submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights and requested interim measures under rule 39 of the rules of the Court. That application was declared inadmissible on May 2015. The State party argues that the author’s case has thus been considered by another procedure of international investigation and should therefore be declared inadmissible. The State party also notes that in the author’s submissions to the Committee subsequent to the admissibility decision of 26 November 2015, she invokes several articles of the Covenant and several events that are different from the ones mentioned 7 10 The Court of Appeal justified the need for supervision on the grounds of the potential risk that the author might fail to return the children after the meetings.