4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Frankfurt. 5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 6.  The applicant is the mother of a child born on 23 January 1996. In 2004, after having obtained an expert opinion, a court transferred custody to her and at the same time determined the father's access rights. 7.  On 17 August 2007, following a three-week stay with her father, the child refused to go back to her mother, and, on account of this, was taken into care. 8.  On 20 August 2007 the applicant requested the court to return the child to her custody. 9.  On 21 August 2007 the Frankfurt/Main District Court (the “District Court”), by means of an interlocutory decision, made at the request of the Frankfurt/Main Youth Office, transferred the right to determine the child's residence and other essential aspects of custody to the Frankfurt/Main Youth Office. 10.  In a letter of 24 August 2007 the applicant requested the District Court to quash this decision. The court then set the parties a time-limit of four weeks to submit further submissions. 11.  On 11 September 2007 the District Court formally appointed a guardian ad litem (Verfahrenspfleger) for the child. On 20 September 2007 the Youth Office submitted a report. On 27 September 2007 the District Court heard the child. 12.  On 26 October 2007, on account of the competent judge being ill, the District Court cancelled the hearing scheduled for 30 November 2007. 13.  On 1 January 2008 the case was assigned to another judge. On 5 February 2008 that judge scheduled the hearing for 18 March 2008. 14.  On 11 February 2008 the applicant's newly-appointed lawyer requested access to the files. This was refused on the ground that he had not yet submitted a power of attorney. By letters dated 12 and 15 February 2008 the new lawyer requested that the hearing be scheduled for another day. 15.  On 20 February 2008 the new lawyer submitted a power of attorney (possibly for the second time). On 27 February 2008 the District Court refused to reschedule the hearing, inter alia, on the ground that the applicant still appeared to be represented by her former lawyer, who had not yet informed the court that his mandate had been terminated. 16.  On 3 March 2008 the applicant's new lawyer provided the District Court with satisfactory proof of the termination of the previous lawyer's mandate and again requested access to the files. This request was granted on 4 March 2008. 17.  On 7 March 2008 the applicant challenged the judge on the ground of bias. On 13 March 2008 the hearing was cancelled. The applicant's lawyer was not informed about it. On 17 March 2008 the judge ruled against the allegation of bias. 18.  On 20 March 2008 the applicant also challenged the appointment of the child's guardian ad litem. On 14 April 2008 the District Court transmitted the files to the Frankfurt/Main Court of Appeal. On 17 April 2008 that court rejected her appeal. 19.  On 25 April 2008 and again on 26 June 2008 the District Court also rejected the applicant's motion for bias. The latter decision was served upon the applicant on 18 July 2008. On 30 July 2008 the Frankfurt/Main Court of Appeal quashed the decision and found that the judge was biased as she had known that the applicant would not be represented at the scheduled hearing and, moreover, as she had not informed the applicant's lawyer that she had cancelled the hearing. 20.  In letters of 15 and 29 August 2008 the applicant requested the District Court to schedule a hearing. 21.  On 1 September 2008 the case was assigned to another judge. On 9 September 2008 that judge informed the applicant that she intended to appoint an expert. 22.  By a letter dated 11 September 2008, the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint on the basis of the District Court's inactivity. On 16 October 2008, without giving further reasons, the Federal Constitutional Court refused to admit this complaint. 23.  On 27 October 2008 the District Court decided that an expert opinion should be obtained on a number of questions and an expert was subsequently appointed. On 13 December 2008, on the court's request, the expert informed the District Court that he would submit a report by 1 March 2009. On 24 February 2009 the expert submitted his report. 24.  At a hearing on 15 April 2009 the court heard the parties and the child. 25.  On 20 May 2009 the Frankfurt/Main District Court rejected the applicant's claim. On that day it also decided, firstly, on a claim by the child's father, introduced on 19 November 2007, aimed at seeking custody of the child and, secondly, on proceedings on the right to determine the child's residence initiated by the court of its own motion. 26.  On 18 June 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Frankfurt/Main Court of Appeal.