CRC/C/97/D/135/2021

GE.24-17874 (E) 031224 031224

Committee on the Rights of the Child

Decision adopted by the Committee under the Optional

Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a

communications procedure, concerning communication

No. 135/2021*, **

Communication submitted by:

N.P. (represented by counsel)

Alleged victims:

J.P.M. and M.P.M.

State party:

France

Date of communication:

12 December 2020 (initial submission)

Date of adoption of decision:

2 September 2024

Subject matter:

Placement in institutional care of two sisters to

ensure their rights to health and education

Procedural issue:

Consent of children

Substantive issues:

Best interests of the child; separation of children

from their mother (placement in institutional

care); right of the child to be heard; right to

education; right to health; right to security

Articles of the Convention:

3, 6, 8, 9, 12, 16, 19, 20, 23, 24, 28 and 34–37

Article of the Optional Protocol:

5 (2)

1.1

The author of the communication is N.P., a national of France, who states that she is

acting on behalf of her daughters, J.P.M. and M.P.M., both nationals of France born on

20 May 2008 and 30 July 2009. She alleges that the State party has violated her daughters’

rights under articles 3, 6, 8, 9, 12, 16, 19, 20, 23, 24, 28 and 34–37 of the Convention. She is

requesting as interim measures that her daughters be returned to her for the duration of the

consideration of her communication and that the State party seek independent practitioners

to establish a diagnosis. The author claims to be represented by Edwige Garcia and Frédéric

Fabre.1 The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State party on 7 April 2016.

1.2

On 4 January 2021, the Working Group on Communications, acting on behalf of the

Committee and in accordance with article 6 of the Optional Protocol, decided not to issue a

* Adopted by the Committee at its ninety-seventh session (26 August–13 September 2024).

** The following members of the Committee participated in the examination of the communication:

Suzanne Aho, Aïssatou Alassane Moulaye Sidikou, Thuwayba Al Barwani, Hynd Ayoubi Idrissi,

Mary Beloff, Rinchen Chophel, Rosaria Correa, Bragi Gudbrandsson, Philip Jaffé, Sopio Kiladze,

Benyam Dawit Mezmur, Otani Mikiko, Luis Ernesto Pedernera Reyna, Ann Skelton, Velina

Todorova, Benoit Van Keirsbilck and Ratou Zara.

1 However, the author herself sent and signed the communication.

United Nations

CRC/C/97/D/135/2021

Convention on the

Rights of the Child

Distr.: General

29 October 2024

English

Original: French

CRC/C/97/D/135/2021

2

GE.24-17874

request for interim measures under article 6 of the Optional Protocol and rule 7 of its rules of

procedure under the Optional Protocol.

Facts as submitted by the author

2.1

The author was in a relationship with M.M., the father of both daughters, until he left

the family home in 2009 to live in another part of the country. Pursuant to a decision of the

family court judge, M.M. regularly received his daughters at his home during the school

holidays. Since 2012, the author has been in a common-law relationship with E.G., who lives

at her home with the two children. From that point onward, the author experienced difficulties

with J.P.M., who had fits of rage which only the author and her partner were able to appease.

The little girl also had problems with faecal incontinence.

2.2

On 12 June 2017, the head of the paediatric unit at Saint-Brieuc Hospital – who had

treated J.P.M. during a hospital stay triggered by the child’s violent fits of rage – filed a report

about J.P.M. in which he mentioned her fits and a feeling of being ignored by her mother.

Two psychologists also reported J.P.M.’s case after the mother had a violent outburst about

her. By request of 3 November 2017, the public prosecutor initiated proceedings before the

juvenile court concerning the situation of the two girls. In a medical certificate dated

7 November 2017, the author was described as being highly toxic and as having a serious

personality disorder; therefore, it was recommended that the children be temporarily placed

in alternative care.

2.3

On 17 November 2017, the juvenile court judge at the Saint-Brieuc Tribunal de

Grande Instance (court of major jurisdiction) ordered the girls to be placed in different

homes.2 The judge noted that, since the Children’s Medical and Psychological Centre had

found no particular problem, J.P.M was being treated by a private psychologist. The social

workers involved in the social assessment noted that J.P.M.’s fits of rage appeared to be tied

to the mother’s attitude towards her daughter. The psychological evaluation found that the

relationship between mother and daughter was destructive and that J.P.M. should be removed

from the family home. In school, J.P.M. was described as being a pleasant student without

any behavioural problems. The professionals who met with J.P.M. expressed unanimous

concern about the situation of M.P.M., who appeared to be caught in a conflict of loyalty

towards her mother. The judge also found that there was significant conflict between the

author and her own mother.

2.4

In the same decision, the judge found that the author appeared to be overwhelmed by

considerable concern about J.P.M.’s situation. The mother appeared to be requesting help

and to understand the need to remove the little girl from the home; in her view, however, the

measure was intended to protect them all from J.P.M.’s behaviour, not to protect J.P.M.3 The

judge took the view that the care provided to J.P.M. and M.P.M. at the mother’s home did

not ensure their harmonious psychological and emotional development and amounted to a

situation of risk for both little girls. The judge determined that, to enable the girls to rebuild

their lives away from the mother’s home and the mother to begin therapy, it was appropriate

to order their placement for a period of six months with the Côtes d’Armor child welfare

services. The judge also ordered that both parents undergo a psychiatric evaluation.

2.5

By ordinance of 8 March 2018, the author’s visitation and telephone communication

rights with J.P.M. were suspended but her right to written correspondence with her was

maintained. The judge noted that J.P.M. had asked to communicate only in writing with her

mother, who made vindictive statements about the educational specialists, which put the girls

in an awkward position and caused considerable stress. For her part, M.P.M. did not request

more frequent meetings with her mother.

2.6

On 14 May 2018, the Appeals Court of Rennes dismissed the author’s appeal against

the decision of 17 November 2017 and the ordinance of 8 March 2018. The Appeals Court

2 On 14 March 2019, the Criminal Court of Saint-Brieuc found the author guilty of insult to a court or

public entity after distributing leaflets denouncing the decision of 17 November 2017 and the

conditions in children’s homes, claiming that her daughters “were used as sexual objects”. This ruling

was upheld on appeal.

3 The mother opposed the placement of M.P.M.

CRC/C/97/D/135/2021

GE.24-17874

3

found that the author had contested the reports on the situation of her daughters without,

however, submitting any contradictory evidence. It determined that the mere fact that the

mother had sought care for J.P.M., who had been subject to violent “fits” since 2012, within

a conventional medical framework, without going to see a specialist to understand her

daughter’s behaviour and try to provide her with appropriate support for the problems she

was experiencing, called into question her maternal conduct. This failure, which she cannot

explain away by citing difficulties in obtaining appointments with a specialist, seriously

undermined the psychological and emotional development of both J.P.M. and M.P.M., as a

witness to her sister’s violence during her “fits”. The Appeals Court also found that since the

girls’ placement in alternative care, the author had sought to find every possible shortcoming

in the service, making it impossible to conduct any developmental work. The author’s

conduct towards her daughters, which was at the root of the placement, remained

inappropriate. The Appeals Court therefore upheld the placement order in the absence of an

alternative solution, given that the father’s health and geographical location did not lend

themselves to receiving the children.

2.7

On 16 May 2018, after interviewing the girls,4 the juvenile court judge of Saint-Brieuc

extended their placement with child welfare services for a period of one year and granted the

mother the right to supervised visits with M.P.M. but not to visits with J.P.M. The judge

found that the girls’ development had improved while in residential care and that the author,

owing to her vindictive statements and her difficulty speaking about herself, her daughters

and her relationship with each of them out of a fear of being judged, had not engaged in any

self-reflection and therefore had prevented any change in the situation. The judge determined

that this conduct continued to jeopardize the psychological development of not only J.P.M.,

who was the object of unsettling comments, but also of M.P.M., who was unable to distance

herself from the situation. The judge took into account the report of a psychiatric evaluation

of the author dated 26 April 2018, according to which the author did not have a psychiatric

illness or disorder, including persecutory delusion. The psychiatric expert had emphasized

that the author had sufficient skills and experience to ensure her children’s upbringing

satisfactorily and that, on the psychological level, she had good childrearing abilities to

ensure the emotional development of her children. He had observed, however, a degree of

detachment, as the author had spoken very little about her daughters. By notice of 24 May

2018, the author lodged an appeal against the placement order. In an ordinance of 4 December

2018, the Appeals Court of Rennes rejected the author’s application to block the immediate

enforcement of the decision of 16 May 2018.

2.8

During the summer of 2018, both girls were reunited in the same children’s home.

After J.P.M. reported acts of sexual assault by a boy at her former home, a complaint was

filed and is currently under investigation.

2.9

Subsequently, in ordinances of 23 and 25 July 2018, 30 August 2018 and 12 and

19 November 2018, the juvenile court judge of Saint-Brieuc successively: revoked the

author’s visitation rights in respect of M.P.M.;5 revoked the right to telephone calls6 while

maintaining the right to written communication, the contents of which was to be checked by

staff at the children’s home; granted child welfare services the power to enrol the girls in

school and the universal health insurance scheme, which are actions that come under parental

authority; granted the girls’ maternal grandmother the right to visit and receive J.P.M. and

M.P.M.; transferred parental authority over J.P.M. to child welfare services for the weekend

of 7 to 9 December 2018; and granted the children’s father the right to visit and receive them

during school holidays.

2.10

On 29 April 2019, after ruling on the author’s appeal against the decision of 16 May

2018 and subsequent ordinances, the Appeals Court of Rennes upheld the extension of

J.P.M.’s placement and the suspension of the author’s visitation rights but ordered the end of

M.P.M.’s placement, to whom child welfare services was ordered to provide expanded

developmental assistance in an open centre. The Appeals Court noted that the psychiatric

4 J.P.M. stated her wish to remain in care, while M.P.M. stated her wish to return to her mother’s home.

5 The reason given was that the author and her partner involved M.P.M. too closely in the conflict

between them and social services for her to benefit from visits.

6 The aim was to prevent M.P.M. from having to endure any inappropriate statements.

CRC/C/97/D/135/2021

4

GE.24-17874

report of 26 April 2018 had been drawn up on the sole basis of the author’s statements,

without the children being interviewed, thus undermining the expert’s findings. The Appeals

Court noted that, since being placed in alternative care, M.P.M. had become troubled and that

her state might be linked to her placement. Furthermore, she had not taken advantage of the

placement to get closer to her sister but, rather, sought to distance herself from her. However,

the judgment does not address the allegations that J.P.M. was raped or that M.P.M. was

subjected to physical ill-treatment. In a decision of 2 May 2019, the juvenile court judge of

Rennes, to whom the case had been referred, ordered the temporary placement of M.P.M.

with child welfare services until 16 May 2019 and suspended the author’s visitation rights in

respect of M.P.M.

2.11

On 18 April 2019, the author’s mother filed a criminal complaint for assault against

the author and her partner. The girls witnessed the violence committed against their maternal

grandmother, which traumatized them to such an extent that they told the children’s home

that they did not wish to go to their mother’s home; they also mentioned being subjected to

ill-treatment by the author’s partner when they were there.

2.12

By enforceable judgment of 16 May 2019, the juvenile court judge of Rennes

extended the children’s placement with child welfare services until 16 May 2020, ordered

that their place of residence be kept confidential, suspended their mother’s visitation rights,

granted their father and maternal grandmother the right to visit and receive them and invited

the children’s home to apply to the family court judge for delegation of the mother’s parental

authority. The judgment was based on an incident report dated 18 April 2019 describing

violence that took place at the Rennes train station as the girls were returning from their

father’s home: the author’s partner assaulted the maternal grandmother and pushed M.P.M.’s

head against an elevator as he tried to forcibly take her away. After that incident, M.P.M.

mentioned to social workers for the first time the violence to which she was subjected at her

mother’s home. The author appealed the enforceable judgment of 16 May 2019, but it was

upheld by the Appeals Court of Rennes on 24 February 2020.

2.13

By an ordinance of 16 May 2019, the Appeals Court of Rennes mandated an expert

to conduct a psychiatric evaluation of the author and her two daughters.

2.14

In ordinances of 24 May 2019, 5 July 2019 and 23 August 2019, the juvenile court

judge of Rennes authorized child welfare services to make an appointment for orthodontic

treatment for M.P.M.; reminded child welfare services that the father could authorize certain

acts, as parental authority was joint; enjoined child welfare services to quickly apply to the

juvenile court for delegation of parental authority; authorized child welfare services to enrol

both girls in school for the 2019/20 academic year and register them for activities and summer

camps chosen by their children’s home; ordered that the location of the girls’ schools and

holiday and leisure places be kept confidential; reauthorized the enrolment of both girls in a

school chosen by their children’s home for the 2019/20 academic year; and reordered that

the location of the leisure places and summer camps chosen by their children’s home be kept

confidential.

2.15

The report of a psychiatric evaluation dated 26 February 2020 attests to the fact that

the author does not show any symptoms of a thymic, psychotic or personality disorder and

that she poses no risk to herself or others.

2.16

Pursuant to the ordinance of 16 May 2019, a psychiatric evaluation of the author and

her daughters was carried out on 21 May 2020, via videoconference due to the coronavirus

disease (COVID-19) pandemic. During that evaluation, J.P.M. said that she was sexually

assaulted in her first children’s home. A boy had touched her genitals and buttocks through

her clothing.

2.17

In a request dated 9 March 2020, the author sought the return of her daughters to her

home due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In a report filed on 14 April 2020, child welfare

services requested that the girls’ placement be extended. In a decision of 17 June 2020, the

juvenile court judge of Rennes ordered the author to pay a civil fine of €3,000 for delaying

proceedings by bringing fraudulent actions against a decision that had been upheld on appeal

and against reports by social workers; extended the children’s placement with child welfare

services until 17 June 2021; ordered that the location of the children’s home be kept

confidential; granted the author the right to supervised visits, to be organized by the

CRC/C/97/D/135/2021

GE.24-17874

5

children’s home; granted the father the right to visit and receive the girls, to be implemented

by the children’s home, with a third party present; granted the maternal grandmother the right

to visit and receive the girls, to be implemented by the children’s home; and ordered the

immediate enforcement of the decision. The appeal against the decision was pending at the

time of the submission of the present communication.

2.18

In a decision of 13 August 2020, the president of the Appeals Court of Rennes

suspended the immediate enforcement of the decision of the juvenile court judge, as it

introduced supervised visitation rights for the mother without setting the frequency of the

visits.

2.19

By an order for developmental action of 1 September 2020, the juvenile court judge

of Rennes authorized child welfare services to complete the process of enrolling J.P.M. in

lower secondary school for the 2020/21 academic year.

Complaint

3.1

The author submits that her daughters’ rights under articles 3, 6, 8, 9, 12, 16, 19, 20,

23, 24, 28 and 34–37 have been violated. She also claims violations of articles 3, 8, 13 and

14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

(European Convention on Human Rights); articles 7, 14, 16, 24 and 26 of the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and articles 1 and 10–14 of the Convention against

Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

3.2

The author claims a violation of article 3 on the grounds that J.P.M.’s fits have

continued even though she has been separated from her mother for over three years, that she

has not received medical treatment and that no diagnosis has been reached, as successive

judges have ignored the requests for medical evaluations to be conducted by independent

experts in the field of autism. For her part, M.P.M. suffered for months from a nail infection

that went untreated and it appears from her incessant attempts to end her life that the

depression caused by being arbitrarily placed in alternative care is not being treated seriously.

3.3

The author argues that the placement of the girls and the fact that they were separated

from each other, in breach of the “protection of the sibling bond”, are not in the best interests

of the child and therefore amount to a violation of their rights under articles 3, 23 and 35–37

of the Convention. According to the author, the extension of her daughters’ placement

constitutes inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of article 37 of the

Convention and a deprivation of their right to know their family within the meaning of

article 8. The author further claims that the placement of M.P.M. led to her depressive state,

including suicidal ideation, in violation of article 24 of the Convention.

3.4

Citing article 34 of the Convention, the author submits that J.P.M. was raped at a

centre run by child welfare services and that she has been very active on social media since

the age of 11 when these platforms are supposed to be banned for children under the age

of 13. The author also submits that J.P.M. has prostituted herself by posting naked images of

herself on these media while in the care of child welfare services.

3.5

The author refers to article 20 of the Convention, on the obligation to provide special

protection to children deprived of their family environment, and denounces the inhuman and

degrading treatment to which the young girls were subjected at facilities run by child welfare

services.

3.6

The author also refers to article 28 of the Convention in relation to her complaint that

successive juvenile court judges refused to allow the girls to attend a Catholic school even

when M.P.M. was not enrolled in any school at the start of the 2020/21 academic year.

3.7

The author further refers to articles 35 and 36 of the Convention and claims that

department-level councils organize the trafficking of French children “in concert with

judges”.

3.8

Lastly, the author denounces the State party’s alternative care system on the basis of

several reports, emphasizing that the focus of child placement is financial since each child

placed in care fetches €189 per day.

CRC/C/97/D/135/2021

6

GE.24-17874

State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits

Clarification of the facts

4.1

In its observations of 18 October 2021, the State party submits that the decisions to

place J.P.M. and M.P.M. in separate homes were taken in their best interests.

4.2

On the basis of a child welfare services report of 2 November 2017, a judge ordered

J.P.M. and M.P.M. to be placed in separate homes for a period of six months from

17 November 2017. In a decision of 14 May 2018, the Appeals Court of Rennes upheld the

placement order and, on 16 May 2018, the judge extended the placement for 12 months.

4.3

On 29 April 2019, the Appeals Court of Rennes maintained the placement order with

regard to J.P.M. and lifted the order with regard to M.P.M. However, M.P.M. refused to

return to her mother’s home; therefore, the judge issued a temporary placement order on

2 May 2019.7

Observations on admissibility

4.4

First, the State party notes that a number of legal proceedings are ongoing before the

juvenile court of Rennes and the Appeals Court of Rennes. Specifically, the author has not

appealed the decisions of 17 June 2020 and 30 November 20208 on points of law. By failing

to file such an appeal, particularly against the decision of 30 November 2020, the State party

considers that the author has deprived herself of the opportunity to present her case and have

the placement of her children reviewed by a court. Accordingly, the State party submits that

the complaint is inadmissible under article 7 (e) of the Optional Protocol for non-exhaustion

of domestic remedies.

4.5

Secondly, in reference to article 1 of the Optional Protocol, the State party takes the

view that the complaint is inadmissible on the grounds that it is manifestly unfounded and

that the merits are insufficiently substantiated. According to the State party, the violations

alleged by the author are general and sometimes contradictory or unrelated to the case.9

4.6

Thirdly, the State party points out that the author’s claims have not been raised directly

or in substance during the appeal proceedings before the national courts. The State party

considers that this is further grounds for a finding of inadmissibility and, in this regard, cites

Views of the Human Rights Committee according to which complaints must have been raised

at least in substance during proceedings at the national level in order to allow the courts to

remedy the violation.10

Observations on the merits

4.7

The State party argues that the author’s allegations of a violation of articles 3, 8, 16,

19, 20, 24, 28 and 34–37 are inconsistent and that, contrary to her assertion, the best interests

of J.P.M. and M.P.M. were at the centre of all the juvenile court’s decisions.

4.8

Regarding the placement of J.P.M. and M.P.M. with child welfare services and the

author’s claim that she was deprived of the possibility of visiting her children “for no valid

reason”, the State party submits that the national courts decided to place J.P.M. and M.P.M.

in alternative care only after conducting a thorough analysis of the relevant information. On

2 November 2017, the Côtes d’Armor unit responsible for gathering information of concern

submitted a report to the public prosecutor, describing the harmful relationship between the

author and J.P.M. and the fact that the author disparaged, humiliated and neglected J.P.M. in

7 The judgment of 16 May 2019 ordered the continued placement of M.P.M. and the extension of

J.P.M.’s placement for another 12 months. This judgment was upheld on appeal on 24 February 2020.

8 The court extended the placement for a further 12 months in an ordinance of 17 June 2020, which was

upheld by the Appeals Court of Rennes on 30 November 2020.

9 For example, the State party notes that the author claims that child welfare services is running a

national prostitution ring involved in trafficking in children and that vaccinations are harmful and

peddled by the pharmaceutical industry.

10 See, for example, Stephens v. Jamaica (CCPR/C/55/D/373/1989); and Singh v. France,

communication no. 1852/2008.

CRC/C/97/D/135/2021

GE.24-17874

7

a manner that necessitated the child’s removal from the family home. These facts were

subsequently corroborated by professionals from the centre for medical and psychological

care. The case was referred to the Criminal Court of Saint-Brieuc. On 17 November 2017,

following in-depth consideration and a hearing with the children, a representative of the

social security office and the author, who had legal counsel, the juvenile court judge placed

J.P.M. and M.P.M. under the guardianship of child welfare services on the grounds that the

mother’s home was not conducive to their harmonious psychological and emotional

development and amounted to a situation of risk for both girls. The judge nonetheless

authorized supervised visits to preserve the author’s relationship with her children. The State

party is of the view that this shows that the juvenile court judge was determined to take

decisions that were in the best interests of J.P.M. and M.P.M and that, given the level of risk,

placement outside the home was justified and proportional.

4.9

With reference to the author’s claims that the children were separated from each other

in violation of the “protection of the sibling bond expected under the Convention”, the State

party notes that the psychological evaluation of 2 November 2017 showed that the author had

fostered a rivalry between her two girls.

4.10 Contrary to the author’s claim that her visitation rights were suspended without reason,

the State party submits that her visitation rights with regard to J.P.M. were suspended only

after the juvenile court judge had received an incident report according to which the author

behaved inappropriately towards her daughters, causing them considerable suffering. The

juvenile court judge suspended the author’s visitation rights with regard to J.P.M. but

maintained her right to telephone calls and written correspondence with her.

4.11

On the basis of the report of the court-ordered child situation review, conducted from

September 2017 to February 2018, the Appeals Court of Rennes upheld the decision to

suspend visitation rights. The Appeals Court noted that the author had systematically opposed

the placement and had used supervised visits to challenge the placement rather than to spend

time with her children. The stress thus caused to the children raised alarm as to their

psychological and emotional development. On 16 May 2018, the court extended the

placement order for 12 months. While the author has consistently called into question the

placement orders, the State party underscores that the court found sufficient risk factors to

justify extending the placement. Furthermore, the court noted that J.P.M. had expressed the

wish to remain in care and to maintain the possibility of seeing her mother occasionally. The

court subsequently suspended the author’s right to visit and telephone M.P.M., noting that

her presence might trouble the child. In particular, the court noted that the author tried to

convince M.P.M. that she was in danger while in alternative care and made inappropriate,

sexually suggestive comments. The author’s right to written communication was maintained.

4.12

The State party argues that, even though the author was adamant that her children

should receive a religious education at a Catholic school, the father agreed with the court’s

decision to have them enrolled in a public school. On reflection, the court took the view that

religious instruction could be provided whatever school the children attended. Moreover, it

found the author’s opposition to be manifestly unfounded and excessive. The court also found

that the author deliberately hampered the children’s access to medical care by insisting that

they see healthcare professionals located far away and by failing to pay related expenses that

would eventually have been reimbursed to her.

4.13

In April 2019, the court confirmed its decision to extend J.P.M.’s placement,

justifying its decision by citing the author’s lack of progress and the resultant ongoing

concern about J.P.M.’s psychological and emotional development. The court also determined

that it was in the best interests of M.P.M. to end her placement while providing her with an

environment with additional resources. Although the placement order with regard to M.P.M.

was rescinded, she expressed the wish not to return to live with the author.

4.14

On 17 April 2019, the maternal grandmother was reportedly violently assaulted by the

author in the presence of both children. Following a hearing, the court once against placed

the children with child welfare services for a period of 12 months, requiring that the address

of the children’s home be kept confidential and suspending the author’s visitation rights. In

connection with the violent incident, the author and her partner were charged, put under court

CRC/C/97/D/135/2021

8

GE.24-17874

supervision and banned from contacting the children. That ban was lifted by the investigating

chamber of the Appeals Court of Rennes on 26 June 2020.

4.15

On 24 February 2020, the Appeals Court of Rennes upheld the placement order,

noting that the children had both stated that, while they missed the author, they were afraid

of having direct contact with her owing to the physical and psychological violence they

experienced when they lived with her and that they felt calmer in their current children’s

home.

4.16

The State party argues that it was in the best interests of J.P.M. and M.P.M. that the

court extended the placement order on 17 June 2020 and that, on 5 October 2020, the court

set the conditions for the author to have supervised visits. This decision was upheld on

30 November 2020 by the Appeals Court of Rennes, which noted that building a lasting bond

with her children required the author to take steps to ensure that the relationship did not

become dysfunctional once again. In its reasoning, the Appeals Court based itself on

psychiatric reports indicating that the author had paranoid personality traits and that the bond

with her children should be rebuilt in a gradual supervised manner. The Appeals Court also

considered visitation rights, which it found to be essential and therefore extended them to

two hours per child, per visit.

4.17

In response to the author’s claim that maintaining the placement order constitutes

inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of article 37 of the Convention and a

deprivation of the right to know one’s family within the meaning of article 8, the State party

points out that the national courts prioritized the best interests of the children by respecting

their wish to stop having visits with their mother and, later, to resume them.

4.18

In keeping with articles 19 and 24 of the Convention, the State party recalls that the

courts safeguarded the well-being, health and safety of the children in all their decisions.

Furthermore, the State party repeats that the courts periodically reviewed the placement order

on the basis of objective information and interviews with all the parties. The State party

therefore concludes that there was no breach of articles 8, 19, 24 and 37 of the Convention.

4.19

The author claims violations of articles 34–36 of the Convention, alleging that, since

J.P.M. was sexually assaulted by a minor at her children’s home, child welfare services

organized her prostitution. The State party recalls that these allegations have been brought to

the juvenile court. After the author had made these allegations without providing any proof

and, between 2 July and 20 September 2018, distributed leaflets claiming that child welfare

services were mistreating the children, on 14 March 2019, the Criminal Court of Saint-Brieuc

convicted the author of insult to this institution for distributing leaflets critical of the living

conditions in the children’s home.

4.20

Concerning the placement in alternative care, the author contends that the measure

was arbitrary and had caused her daughters to become depressed, do poorly in school and

engage in petty crime, prostitution and drug trafficking, in breach of articles 35 and 36 of the

Convention. The State party notes that, on the contrary, the placement was executed in full

compliance with articles 3 and 9 of the Convention and that the measure was necessary to

protect the children’s physical and psychological security.

4.21

In every decision to place the children with child welfare services, the judicial

authorities endeavoured to preserve their best interests. While it considered it necessary to

protect their health and well-being, the court also sought to maintain the family ties between

the author, the father and the maternal grandmother. The State party further notes that the

father never challenged the court orders and that he was able to successfully work on his

relationship with his children by exercising his visitation rights in accordance with article 5

of the Convention. In addition, the State party wishes to stress that the decisions taken

concerning placement and visitation rights do not amount to kidnapping or enforced

disappearance of a child as claimed by the author.

4.22

The State party submits that the decisions by the national courts were justified by

reports describing the author’s difficulties, especially during supervised visits, which

eventually led to her visitation rights being suspended. In particular, the author’s behaviour

was considered sufficiently unpleasant for the girls to justify keeping the location of their

children’s home and school confidential. In these circumstances, the State party suggests that

CRC/C/97/D/135/2021

GE.24-17874

9

the difficulties in preserving the parent-child relationship cannot be attributed to the national

authorities.

4.23

The State party admits that there has been some improvement since the supervised

visits resumed. Nevertheless, it maintains that the author did not realize the harmful impact

of her actions, which played a crucial role in the court’s decision to place the children with a

foster family and to temporarily suspend visitation rights. The national courts affirm that they

conscientiously weighed the best interests of the children and the preservation of family ties

while taking all measures necessary to promote the well-being of the children. Consequently,

the State party asserts that there has been no breach of articles 3, 5, 9 and 34–36 of the

Convention.

Author’s comments on the State party’s observations

Clarification of the facts

5.1

In her comments of 22 December 2021, the author states that during the first months

of her placement, J.P.M., who was 9 years old at the time, was sexually assaulted a number

of times while in the care of child welfare services. She submits that she was unfairly

prosecuted and convicted for speaking out publicly about the sexual assaults.

5.2

On 12 December 2020, the author submitted a communication to the Committee

concerning the placement of her children, noting that despite her repeated requests for

medical care, M.P.M. was neglected by child welfare services and, consequently, did not

receive treatment for her back and dental problems.

Comments on admissibility

5.3

Regarding the State party’s argument that domestic remedies have not been exhausted,

the author submits that she has tried to exhaust these remedies. According to her, the

proceedings before the Court of Cassation would be unreasonably prolonged and unlikely to

result in effective redress.

5.4

In support of the claim that the remedy is ineffective, the author notes that, on 29 April

2019, the Appeals Court of Rennes cancelled the placement of M.P.M. and ordered her

“release”. Despite this decision, child welfare services opposed the “release” and brought a

complaint to the public prosecutor of Saint-Brieuc, who initiated proceedings against the

author and her former partner for alleged acts of violence. The author notes that the children

were with child welfare services for three years without any such charges being brought.

5.5

Concerning the State party’s claim that M.P.M.’s placement was extended because

she had expressed the wish to remain in the care of child welfare services, the author submits

that M.P.M. never mentioned wanting this and that the placement was extended due to the

violence allegedly committed by her former partner. The author points out that it was not

until the year the communication was submitted to the Committee that J.P.M. and M.P.M.

allegedly said that they did not want to return to live with her. She points out with scepticism

that the children submitted remarkably similar letters to the judge even though they were

placed separately. In the author’s opinion, the failure to comply with the order to release

M.P.M. demonstrates that domestic remedies are ineffective given that M.P.M. was not

returned to her despite a national court having ordered her return.

5.6

The author adds that she was not summoned to the hearings that led to the final

ordinance issued on 26 November 2021. The fact that she was unable to present her

arguments in adversarial proceedings, as required in the juvenile justice system, constitutes

a denial of justice.

5.7

As for the State party’s argument that the substance of a claim must be raised in

proceedings before the national courts, the author notes that she brought complaints to the

juvenile court and the Appeals Court of Rennes on 4 January 2021.

CRC/C/97/D/135/2021

10

GE.24-17874

Comments on the merits

5.8

The author repeats that the placement orders are contrary to articles 9 and 42 of the

Convention, as they do not take into account the best interests of the children and national

judges are not aware of States parties’ obligations under the Convention.

5.9

In response to the State party’s claim that her allegations of sexual assault have not

been substantiated, the author repeats that her allegations were recognized in the decision of

31 March 2021. Similarly, with regard to its claim that the allegation of prostitution is

unfounded, the author notes that she submitted a bailiff’s report of a conversation between

herself and the president of an association that tackles the sexual exploitation of children in

prostitution, which supports her allegations. By failing to protect the children from sexual

abuse and exploitation, the State party has violated articles 19 and 34 of the Convention. The

author adds that the State party was not sincere in its observations to the Committee, in breach

of articles 44–46 of the Convention.

5.10

The author notes that, in the light of the decision of 31 March 2021 supporting

J.P.M.’s allegations of sexual assault, it is unwarranted for the State party to raise her criminal

conviction for insult to a court or public entity. This constitutes a violation of article 2 (2) of

the Convention.

5.11

The author points out that, owing to the authorities’ refusal to ensure that M.P.M.

received regular medical care, M.P.M. was deprived of the orthopaedic insoles necessary to

correct the deviation of her spine. This illustrates that M.P.M. did not receive appropriate

medical attention while in care, despite her mother’s many complaints, and constitutes a

violation of articles 6 and 24 of the Convention. The author notes that the court-appointed

psychiatrist certified that she was able to care for her children. Yet, the judge did not take

into account this expert opinion, preferring instead a different one that came to the opposite

conclusion. This constitutes a violation of article 24 of the Convention.

5.12

The author submits that she continually requested child welfare services to ensure that

her daughters received the necessary medical attention and that the failure to respect her

parental authority over medical decisions about M.P.M.’s care constitutes a violation of

article 25 of the Convention. On 18 November 2021, M.P.M. saw a healthcare professional

for injuries to her foot; surgery was scheduled for 20 December 2021. Child welfare services

did not inform the author of her daughter’s medical situation or ask her authorization for the

surgery. In fact, on 26 November 2021, the court in Rennes gave child welfare services the

power to authorize the operation without holding adversarial proceedings. The author

considers this to be unacceptable disregard for her parental authority. Similarly, the author

repeatedly raised with child welfare services the matter of M.P.M.’s scoliosis, which now

requires major back surgery.

5.13

The author notes that, while the Criminal Court of Saint-Brieuc recognized that J.P.M.

had been sexually assaulted, the child received no support despite the author’s many requests.

Regarding the State party’s claim that she is against vaccination, the author notes that all her

requests for an independent diagnosis of J.P.M.’s autism were arbitrarily denied. Furthermore,

M.P.M. suffered for several months from an untreated nail infection. Having lost confidence

in healthcare institutions, the author is hesitant to get vaccinated. In the author’s opinion, the

State party has violated articles 24 (1) and 25 of the Convention by not ensuring that her

daughters receive the requested medical attention.

5.14

In her additional comments of 1 June 2022, the author repeats that, in her comments

of 22 December 2021, she stressed that the State party was using as an argument against her

the number of proceedings initiated and the fact that she has incessantly denounced the

shortcomings of the child welfare system that is supposed to be responsible for protecting the

girls. The author maintains that there have been violations of articles 3, 6, 9, 19, 24 (1) and (3),

25, 34–36, 41 and 44 (6) of the Convention, noting that the additional violations compared

to her initial submission arise from the observations made by the State party.

5.15

The author notes that the reports submitted to the Committee by the State party to

justify the placement of J.P.M. and M.P.M. in alternative care are different from those

provided to her during the proceedings before the national courts. In these reports, the author

is accused of threatening to kill her mother and daughters before committing suicide. Yet,

CRC/C/97/D/135/2021

GE.24-17874

11

the expert opinion that the court itself ordered found that the author had no disorders, that

she was able to bring up her children and that her behaviour was neither depressed nor

suicidal. The author takes the view that this expert opinion was deliberately concealed.

Furthermore, the accusations contained in the reports were not brought to her attention until

May 2022, thus depriving her of the possibility to defend herself. Therefore, the national

courts did not correctly consider the evidence, in violation of article 4 of the Convention.

5.16

In conclusion, the author requests the Committee to find inadmissible the documents

submitted by the State party that contain “false accusations” against her, as the State party

never raised the substance of these accusations during the proceedings before the national

courts. The author also requests the Committee to find a violation of articles 2 (2), 3, 4, 6, 9,

19, 24 (1) and (3), 25, 34–36, 41 and 44 (6) of the Convention.

Issues and proceedings before the Committee

Consideration of admissibility

6.1

Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must

decide, in accordance with rule 20 of the rules of procedure under the Optional Protocol,

whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol.

6.2

The Committee recalls that, pursuant to article 5 (2) of the Optional Protocol, where

communications are submitted on behalf of children, they must be submitted with their

consent unless the author can justify acting on their behalf without such consent. It is

therefore up to the authors to provide this justification, even in cases where the authors are

the parents.

6.3

In the present case, the Committee notes that, at the time of submission of the

communication, in December 2020, J.P.M. and M.P.M. were 12 and 11 years old respectively,

and should have been able to give their informed consent to the author’s submission of a

communication to the Committee on their behalf. The Committee also notes that, in a

decision of 17 June 2020, the juvenile court judge of Rennes ordered that the location of the

children’s home be kept confidential, while granting the author the right to supervised visits

organized by the children’s home. These rights to supervised visitation were upheld by the

Appeals Court of Rennes on 13 August 2020. Since the author’s contact with J.P.M. and

M.P.M. had not been suspended, it was incumbent on the author to explain why she had been

unable to obtain their consent. Consequently, the Committee considers that the author has

failed to provide justification for having acted on behalf of her daughters, and therefore

considers that it cannot consider the communication under article 5 (2) of the Optional

Protocol.

6.4

Accordingly, the Committee declares the communication inadmissible under

article 5 (2) of the Optional Protocol on the grounds that the author has failed to provide

justification for acting on behalf of her daughters without their consent.

7.

The Committee therefore decides:

(a)

That the communication is inadmissible under article 5 (2) of the Optional

Protocol;

(b)

That the present decision shall be transmitted to the author of the

communication, to J.P.M. and M.P.M. and, for information, to the State party.