CASE OF G.B. v. LITHUANIA
Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)
András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer
5. The applicant was born in 1975. When introducing her application to the Court, she lived in Meckenheim, Germany, where the applicant continues to reside to this day. 6. In 2001, in Germany, the applicant married E.B., a German citizen. Their marriage was registered in Lithuania in 2008. They have two daughters, who were born in 2002 and 2003. They all lived in Lithuania. 7. In January 2010 the Lithuanian authorities granted the applicant legal aid in connection with her intent to start divorce and custody proceedings. The following month the applicant applied to the Marijampolė District Court to have her marriage dissolved. She also asked for permission for both daughters to reside with her permanently, and for child maintenance from E.B. 8. In March 2010 Marijampolė Municipal Children’s Rights Protection Service (Vaiko teisių apsaugos tarnyba – hereinafter “the Marijampolė service”) informed the court in writing that the girls’ answers regarding who they would like to live with were unclear. They wished to live with both parents. Given the girls’ young age, and in the absence of information that the applicant was not performing her maternal duties properly, the service stated that residing with the applicant would not be against the children’s interests. 9. The applicant’s husband E.B. then lodged a counterclaim, asking the court to make a residence order in his favour. 10. The applicant then asked the court to grant a temporary protective measure – for the girls to temporarily reside with her until the case was decided on the merits. She submitted that the girls had no citizenship. Given the level of conflict between her and E.B., she feared that he might take the girls to Germany with him and she would then face obstacles in securing their return. 11. On 12 April 2010 the Marijampolė District Court allowed the applicant’s request for a temporary protective measure. The girls were thus to stay with the applicant until the end of the custody proceedings. The ruling was upheld on 31 May 2010 by the Kaunas Regional Court. The latter court ruling, however, specified that the applicant’s husband retained the right to have contact with his daughters at their place of residence or educational institutions. 12. On 19 April 2010 the Marijampolė service provided the court with conclusions indicating that the girls would not clearly state who they would like to live with. The father had suitable accommodation in which to raise them. The service concluded that the interests of the girls, “as future women (kaip būsimoms moterims)” would be better met if they lived together with the mother. Information obtained from doctors and educational institutions confirmed that the applicant took care of her daughters, who had (earlier) attended kindergarten and school in Marijampolė. The Marijampolė service nevertheless noted that its conclusions in the case could be revised if new circumstances emerged. On 9 April 2010 the applicant also wrote to the Kaunas Municipal Children’s Rights Protection Service (hereinafter “the Kaunas service”) stating that on 6 April he tried to call his daughters on the telephone, but no one answered. The applicant, with whom the daughters had to be, did not answer her telephone either. The applicant noted that the older daughter attended school in Marijampolė, but she had not been seen at school as of 6 April. He went to the apartment which the applicant had been renting in Marijampolė, but found the doors locked. E.B. considered that the applicant abused her parental rights, obstructed him to communicate with his daughters even by telephone, and did not guarantee the girl’s right to attend school. E.B. suspected that the applicant could have taken their daughters to Kaunas. He asked the Kaunas service to investigate the situation and promised his full cooperation. In reply, on 27 April 2010 the Kaunas service noted that since March 2010 the applicant had been living with her daughters in Kaunas. Between April and June 2010 one of the girls attended kindergarten, and the other attended school. Conditions at the flat where the applicant lived in Kaunas were appropriate for the girls. 13. It transpires from a police report that on 4 June 2010 the applicant contacted Kaunas police to report that she had allowed E.B. to see their daughters in Kaunas that day but he had not returned them to her. The police established that the girls were with their father in Marijampolė. On 10 June 2010 a police officer visited E.B. and the girls in Marijampolė and found them to be safe. The officer telephoned the applicant and asked her to come and take the girls. She replied that she had already contacted a bailiff and would not be going to pick them up herself. 14. On 8 June 2010 the applicant made a further application for protective measures, asking the Marijampolė District Court to restrict her husband’s right to see his daughters. 15. The Marijampolė District Court then deemed it necessary to ask both the Kaunas and Marijampolė services to provide information, and decided to hold an oral hearing to better establish whether any circumstances had evolved. The Kaunas service provided conclusions on 22 June 2010, stating that by agreement of the parents the girls had met their father on 4 June, but he had not yet returned them. Their colleagues, child care specialists from the Marijampolė service, had visited the girls at their father’s home. The girls explained that they liked and wished to be there; their interests or rights had not been compromised. The Kaunas service also noted that, in accordance with Article 3.164 of the Civil Code, a child who could express his or her views had to be heard and have his or her wishes taken into account, unless they were against his or her interests. For the Kaunas child care specialists, it was desirable to have an order in place setting out how the girls could have contact with their father pending the proceedings. On 23 June 2010 the Marijampolė service informed the court in writing that earlier that month they had visited E.B.’s apartment twice, without prior notification, on 11 and 21 June. The girls had communicated with their father naturally and without tension. There was no reason to believe that they were physically or emotionally unsafe at their father’s home. E.B. explained that on 4 June 2010 he took the girls on common agreement with the applicant. A couple of hours later, when he wished to return their daughters, the applicant could not be reached on her telephone. The applicant therefore took the girls to Marijampolė. The service considered that the applicant’s suggestions that E.B. could kidnap the girls and take them to Germany were unfounded. The service also noted that it was unclear why the applicant would not call her daughters by telephone or come to Marijampolė and contact the service so that they could go and visit the girls together (a point remade in its separate letter to the applicant of the same date). The service also stressed that the manner in which both E.B. and the applicant chose to resolve their conflict – which, due to their complaints, required the girls to communicate with child care specialists and police officers – negatively affected the children. 16. On 28 June 2010 the applicant declared her place of residence as Kaunas. The same month the Kaunas and Marijampolė services exchanged a number of letters with the applicant, replying to various requests for information and assistance. It was noted, inter alia, that she had been asked to visit the Marijampolė service to resolve the matter of the girls’ return and to go to E.B.’s home with police officers to take the girls, but she had declined to do so. The child care specialists also noted having visited E.B.’s home, where the girls had been found. E.B. had explained to the child care specialists that his daughters did not wish to go to their mother’s and that he did not want to take them there by force. The Marijampolė service enquired with the applicant why she herself had not been calling her daughters and had not applied to the service for assistance in meeting them. For the child care specialists, the manner in which the applicant chose to solve her dispute with E.B. negatively affected the girls’ psychological well-being, because they had to communicate with various authorities often. The applicant was also informed that it was the bailiff who was competent to enforce court decisions. 17. On 9 July 2010 the Marijampolė District Court decided the temporary protective measures application in the presence of the applicant, E.B., their lawyers and a child care specialist. Upon the recommendation of the latter, and given that the court hearing on the merits of the action was scheduled for 19 July, when deciding on the temporary protective measure the court also deemed it appropriate not to hear the children, to avoid causing them even more stress. The court acknowledged that when the applicant had allowed her husband to see their daughters for three hours on 4 June 2010, he had not returned them to her home. It urged the parents to arrange the return of the girls to their mother and to reach an agreement on how E.B. would contact them until the final court decision in the divorce and custody proceedings. However, each parent had their own conflicting opinions, which only served to worsen the strained relations between them. The court noted that both parents had the right to raise their children and have contact with them, and there was no information to suggest that E.B.’s communication with his daughters would cause them harm. Nor was there any information that the applicant was failing in her duties as a mother. Accordingly, pursuant to Article 376 §§ 2 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which required the courts to aim to protect the interests and rights of minors (see paragraph 61 below), and taking into account the earlier court rulings that the girls should temporarily reside with the applicant (see paragraph 11 above), the court ordered E.B. to return his daughters to their mother. Should he fail to do so, the applicant could contact a bailiff, who would then take the girls and their documents and hand them over to the applicant. Until the end of the divorce and custody proceedings, the applicant’s husband was granted contact with his daughters every other weekend from Saturday morning until Sunday evening, when he could collect them from the applicant’s place of residence and spend time with them. He was forbidden only from travelling outside Lithuania with them. On the same day, that is on 9 July 2010 the applicant was explained by the Marijampolė service that execution of court rulings belonged to the exclusive competence of a bailiff. Seven days later the court ruling became final and thus enforceable. Pursuant to the applicant’s request of 19 July 2010, the following day the Marijampolė District Court issued her a writ of execution, which the applicant then transmitted to the bailiff on 26 August 2010 (also see paragraph 46 below). 18. Between July and September 2010 the applicant asked that E.B. be fined for non-compliance with a court order requiring him to hand the children over. She also asked the court to prohibit him from seeing his daughters. In turn, E.B. asked that they remain with him, arguing that they refused to live with their mother. The Marijampolė service informed the court that from 1 September 2010 the girls started attending school in Marijampolė, and that situation had been caused by E.B.’s refusal to hand them over to the applicant. In September 2010, on the recommendation of the Marijampolė service, one of its psychologists saw the girls twice. She observed that they were attached to their father and had a good emotional connection with him. They also stated that they wished to stay with their father. The psychologist could not assess the emotional connection they had with their mother, because she could not be contacted. On 13 September 2010 the Kaunas service informed the court in writing that because the girls did not live in Kaunas, it there were grounds for limiting E.B.’s paternal rights, in accordance with Article 3.180 of the Civil Code. 19. According to the Government, following complaints by the applicant alleging inactivity on the part of both the Kaunas and Marijampolė services, on 5 August 2010 the Ombudsperson for the Protection of Children’s Rights (Vaiko teisių apsaugos kontrolierius – hereinafter “the Ombudsperson”) issued a report. It noted that the relationship between the parents had broken down and that the applicant herself had been hostile. The report established that she instigated conflict, involved different State and municipal institutions in solving her relationship problems with her husband and gave little importance to her own personal responsibility, efforts and benevolence in looking for solutions in the best interests of her daughters. The report also indicated that she had applied to child care services and the police, submitted requests for assistance in taking the children, but as soon as they had provided her with opportunities she had refused them. It was recommended that she solve the questions of the girls’ place of residence and contact by mutual agreement with the father, and in the children’s best interests. 20. On 20 September 2010 the Marijampolė District Court held an oral hearing with the applicant, E.B., their lawyers and representatives of the Marijampolė and Kaunas services. Over the days that followed two more hearings were held and the girls were questioned by the judge in the absence of their parents and their lawyers. One of the girls testified that she wished to live with her father. The other testified that she missed her mother and wished that both parents lived together. She also stated that she otherwise preferred living with her father. 21. On 28 September 2010 the Marijampolė District Court dismissed E.B.’s request that the girls reside with him, and the applicant’s request to forbid him from seeing them. The decision was upheld by the Kaunas Regional Court on 22 November 2010. The courts acknowledged that E.B. had not avoided his duties as a father, but it had not been established that he could provide better living conditions for the girls or raise them better. Moreover, the girls’ place of residence had already been decided by an earlier court ruling and it was not in their best interests to change that place every couple of months. The girls were not yet mature enough for their wishes alone to suffice to change their place of temporary residence. 22. On 23 of September 2010 the principal of the school the girls had been attending in Marijampolė since the beginning of that month informed the child care authorities that the applicant had been visiting the girls at school and communicating with them, their teachers, the school administration and social workers on a regular basis. On one occasion a social worker observed one of the applicant’s meetings with the girls. They had talked to their mother warmly and sincerely, and had stated that they wished to live with both parents. The principal noted having been asked by E.B. to restrict the girls’ contact with the applicant, but he had not acceded to that request because he considered that the girls should see and communicate with both parents. On 3 February 2011, in reply to letters from the applicant asking for information about her daughters’ achievements at school and requesting that it arrange a meeting with her daughters on school premises, the principal informed the applicant that the school had always been open for parents. He noted having urged the applicant since autumn 2010 to come to school as often as possible, and to communicate with her daughters and their teachers. However, ‘the applicant had not heard that message (deja, Jūs šito raginimo neišgirdote)’. The principal stressed that the school was ready to help the applicant in every possible way if she showed initiative to see her daughters; no prior notification for her coming to school was necessary. For the school principal, the applicant’s pleas were particularly odd, because it was only because of her that the girls were not fully fledged members of the school as they were not on the list of pupils. The applicant was well aware of that but had not made any effort to settle the matter. The principal concluded that if the applicant was serious about her daughters’ future, he wanted her to think seriously and solve the problems which depended solely upon her. 23. Between October 2010 and April 2011 the Marijampolė District Court held at least five oral hearings, in which the applicant, E.B., their lawyers and representatives of child care services participated. The court granted a request by the applicant for a psychological assessment of the girls (see paragraph 25 below), had regard to letters from the institutions where the girls attended after-school activities, and questioned the principal and psychologist of the school. 24. At a court hearing on 29 April 2011 the principal testified to having admitted the girls to the school at E.B.’s request and in the girls’ best interests, and that they came to school ready for lessons and well-presented. They were well taken care of, felt well at school and wished to study there. The principal also stated that the applicant could have come to school and taken the girls with her at any time. However, the applicant came to school very seldom; the last time he had seen her there was in January 2011. The school psychologist testified that she had told both parents that they could ask her for psychological assistance, but neither parent had followed up with such a request. Without parental agreement or a referral by child care specialists, no psychological assistance could be provided. The psychologist also testified that the girls’ teachers had not contacted her with any particular concerns about the girls’ well-being. 25. In August 2011 experts from the Vilnius City Child and Adolescent Forensic Psychiatry Department (Vaikų ir paauglių teismo psichiatrijos skyrius) examined the girls. The experts found in respect of both girls that it was not possible to establish which parent’s place of residence would best meet the girls’ interests, because equal communication with both parents, who were important to the girls, was important to them both. When observed with their father, the girls were positive, active and laughed a lot. Both girls’ connection with their father was “positive, warm and strong”. Their relationship with the mother was ambivalent and their feelings were torn (dominuoja prieštaringi (ir teigiami, ir neigiami) jausmai). Even so, there was no doubt that the mother was an important person for the girls. Having regard to the girls’ age, maturity and psychological particularities, they were not yet able to formulate and express their own opinions and views as regards which parent they should live with. The girls’ wish to live with their father was determined by objective factors, namely them living with him for more than a year and communication with their mother being insufficient. Unnatural hostility towards the mother had only traumatised them and parental alienation syndrome, enhanced by their father’s influence, could be seen in their behaviour. Lastly, both girls were attached to each other, and separating them would be traumatic. 26. In August 2011 the applicant declared her place of residence as Meckenheim, Germany. 27. On 4 October 2011 the applicant asked the Marijampolė District Court to hear the case in her absence. She maintained all her civil claims. Moreover, in the applicant’s words, “the forensic expertise having been performed, [paragraph 25 above] I consider that all the evidence in the case has been collected and examined, and that the case should be terminated immediately, and I therefore ask for it to be terminated in my absence because I am ill.” The applicant agreed to her lawyer representing her interests from that point forward. 28. On 5 October 2011 the Marijampolė District Court held an oral hearing with the applicant’s lawyer, E.B., his lawyer, and the child care authorities. During the hearing it came to light that the applicant had declared her place of residence as Germany, where she was expecting a child with another man. According to E.B.’s lawyer, those circumstances were relevant when deciding the girls’ place of residence, especially given the applicant’s initial accusation of the girls being taken to Germany by their father (see paragraph 10 above). The court deemed it appropriate to postpone the hearing, so that the applicant could be questioned. 29. Later that month the applicant’s lawyer provided the court with a medicate certificate issued in Meckenheim, about her client being at risk of premature birth if she experienced physical or psychological stress. The lawyer asked the court to hear the case without her client present, or to suspend the proceedings, until after the applicant had given birth. 30. On 24 October 2011 the court held an oral hearing without the applicant, but in the presence of her lawyer. She confirmed that her client had declared her place of residence as Germany, the father of her future child being a German national, but that she intended to return to Lithuania to live in Kaunas immediately after giving birth in Germany. The lawyer also confirmed that the applicant had not communicated with the girls during that school year. E.B.’s lawyer regretted that the applicant could not be questioned at the hearing. Relying on the forensic experts’ conclusions about parental alienation syndrome, heightened by E.B.’s attitude towards the applicant, the Kaunas service noted that it would be more in the girls’ interests to reside with their mother. It did not see the applicant’s pregnancy as a factor to be taken into account when deciding the girls’ place of residence. The service confirmed that the future child’s father was a German citizen, which suggested that the applicant would live in Germany. Even so, E.B. was a German citizen but lived in Lithuania. The Kaunas service also noted that the applicant had approached them for a referral to psychologists so that she could find contact with her daughters easier. A referral was given to her and, as far as the Kaunas service was aware, the applicant had visited the psychologists for assistance. The service was of the view that the applicant had tried to establish contact with her daughters, but had been unsuccessful. She had probably not visited them at school for a while to avoid traumatising them. 31. At the same hearing the Marijampolė service representative noted that it had known the girls and their family history since 2008, when disagreements between the applicant and E.B. had started. The girls really thought clearly and their minds had developed in accordance with their ages. The representative thought that the girls’ behaviour had been conditioned by their mother’s actions as she did not visit them often at school or show interest in their lives, and therefore no emotional connection between them had been formed. The girls had been heard by the court about a year ago, where they had expressed their wishes (see paragraph 20 above) – the court had to remember that moment and have regard to the girls’ opinion. Indeed, in 2006 the United Nations Children Rights’ Committee had reproached Lithuania for not always hearing and paying attention to the child’s opinion (see paragraph 65 below). The representative noted that no one could ignore the fact that it was not known where the applicant, who was currently in Germany, was about to live. It was submitted that the psychologists’ conclusions were contradictory (yra prieštaringos). The conclusions noted that E.B. was important to the girls; they had a warm, positive and stable relationship with him. When communicating with their father, the girls felt safe and were actively involved in shared activities. They could easily approach their father, hug him and tell him about their achievements at school, where they took prized places in mathematics competitions. The child care specialist emphasised that a child who was psychologically distressed could not have such achievements at school. The Marijampolė service underlined that the circumstances had changed and thus it would always inform the court that it would provide the last conclusion during the last court hearing. Having communicated with the school, the school administration and the teachers, the Marijampolė service was finally persuaded that it was better for the girls to stay in that environment, to attend school and have friends; at home they were also receiving all that was necessary. The applicant, however, did not approach the girls after certain court decisions but first ran to the institutions or called the police, thus traumatising the girls a lot. In the words of the child care specialist, the applicant had not attempted to first meet with the girls or establish contact with them, and had not put in any effort herself. It was odd that a mother would go without seeing her daughters for a couple of months and not ask if they were prepared for school. The Marijampolė service thus submitted that, in the light of the above considerations, E.B. could take care of the girls the best and provide them what they needed. To pull the girls out of the environment they were familiar with and where they had spent most of their time would cause them significant psychological harm. The girls could always choose to tell to their father later that they wish to live with their mother. At the end the Marijampolė service representative noted that, in her view, the child care specialists from Marijampolė had observed the girls more than the representatives from the Kaunas service. 32. On 8 November 2011 the Marijampolė District Court took a decision on the merits of the divorce and custody case. It observed that there was no information in the file to suggest that either parent was failing in their duties to raise their daughters or that their behaviour was immoral. Even so, they had not always acted with the children’s best interests in mind, because during the court proceedings neither parent had attempted to find a compromise as regards their daughters’ place of residence or their contact with them. The court emphasised that the children had to grow up in a safe environment they were used to. However, even though by a court order of 9 May 2010 the girls were to reside with their mother, the actual situation was that since 5 June 2010 they had been residing with their father. The girls themselves had expressed the wish to stay with him. The first-instance court thus held that although the father could have had some influence over the girls’ choice as to who they preferred to live with, it was not decisive. The girls had thus already stated on 11 June 2010 that they preferred living with their father (see paragraph 15 above). It was the court’s view that such a short time (seven days) between those two dates was not sufficient for the girls’ father to influence his daughters. It was thus clear that there was already then tension between the girls and their mother. 33. Lastly, the Marijampolė District Court noted that even though the applicant had declared her place of residence as Kaunas, since August 2011 she was also registered as living in Germany. For the court, the question where the father or mother would live with the children was irrelevant in any event because the girls spoke German; they had previously lived in Germany and thus could adjust to living there easily. What was essential when deciding the question of the girls’ residence was to ascertain who the children were more attached to, and which parent devoted more attention to their interests. The children’s wishes as to where to live could be disregarded only if they were against their interests. Given that there was nothing to suggest that either parent was neglecting their parental duties, the Marijampolė District Court deemed it most suitable to take into account the girls’ wish to live with their father. 34. The first-instance court also ordered the applicant to pay the girls’ father maintenance (60 euros (EUR) for each daughter per month) and set in place a contact order for the applicant to see her daughters. Even though both parents asked to see the children only two weekends per month and during the month of July, in accordance with Article 376 § 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure the court considered ex officio that such a time-frame would be too restrictive for the applicant to be able to build up contact with her daughters. A wider contact order, allowing the applicant contact not only during weekends but also State holidays and certain days during all school holidays was set in place. The court stressed to both parents their obligation to take care of the children and above all be an example to them. The court also divorced the applicant and her husband. 35. On 7 December 2011 the applicant appealed against the first-instance court’s decision. She contested the decision about the girls’ place of residence. Without explicitly asking that a hearing be held, she asked for a re-examination of the evidence and witnesses to be called and questioned. 36. By a letter of 5 March 2012, the applicant also asked the Kaunas Regional Court to admit in evidence letters postmarked between November 2010 and January 2011 she had sent to her daughters in Lithuania from Germany, which had been returned to her in the post. The applicant claimed that E.B. had thus interfered with her right to be in contact with her children. She relied on Article 314 of the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 59 below). 37. By a ruling of 22 March 2012 made in written proceedings, the Kaunas Regional Court left the lower court’s decision unchanged. The court noted at the outset that pursuant to Articles 321 and 322 of the Code of Civil Procedure, appeals had to be heard in written proceedings unless the court deemed an oral hearing indispensable. As regards the applicant’s request to have witnesses questioned, the court established that the applicant had not specified in her appeal what new circumstances essential for the case the requested witnesses could confirm, some of them having already been questioned at first instance. Nor had she explained why she had not submitted the request to the first-instance court. The court concluded that an oral hearing was not necessary, because the applicant had had the opportunity to point out all the circumstances necessary for an examination of the case to the first-instance court and also in her appeal. The appellate court also refused to admit documents related to the applicant’s correspondence with her daughters. According to it, those pieces of evidence had not been analysed in the first-instance court, which was a general requirement for evidence to be admitted in an appeal, or lodged with it. 38. As to the girls’ place of residence, the Kaunas Regional Court dismissed as unfounded the applicant’s plea that the first-instance court did not properly examine the evidence, which included the explanations by the child care authorities, psychologists’ reports, witness testimony and the Ombudsperson’s conclusions. On this last point the court observed the Ombudsperson’s conclusion of 5 August 2010 stating that the applicant was conflictive and involved various authorities in her and E.B.’s conflict, without giving importance to her own responsibility and good-will in finding the best solutions for the children. It also observed that the first-instance court had examined the forensic expert reports about the girls’ psychological state, where it was noted that they both wished to stay with their father. In addition, psychologists from the girls’ school and the school principal were questioned. The applicant’s lawyer herself admitted agreeing with the forensic expert reports, and did not ask for another expert examination to be conducted. 39. The Kaunas Regional Court also found that it was in the best interests of the children to stay with their father, who they had lived with since 5 June 2010. On that point it was also paramount that during the first-instance court hearing the girls had confirmed their wish to live with him. A fact on which the applicant had relied, that E.B. had prior convictions in Germany for sexual and drug-related offences committed in 1996 and 1998 did not have much significance for the case, because the convictions had expired in 2003. The applicant, for her part, had a criminal conviction in Lithuania for forgery of document and a criminal investigation against her for fraud had been terminated. What mattered was that she had left Lithuania for Germany; she had three addresses – in Kaunas, Marijampolė and in Germany, which she had indicated as places where she lived, which suggested that she in fact had no habitual place of residence. Moreover, the applicant’s contact with the girls was merely episodic, whereas the girls’ father took proper care of them and actively participated in raising them. The girls lived with their father, attended school and had suitable living conditions. The evidence as a whole allowed for the conclusion that there was a close connection between the girls and their father. There was no evidence in the case file to the effect that E.B. abused his parental rights, and it was for the applicant to prove the opposite, which she had not done. Moreover, under Article 9 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, a child had the right to be heard in all matters affecting him, which had been done in the present case. The appellate court also observed that in accordance with Article 2 of the aforementioned Convention and Article 3.156 of the Civil Code, both parents had equal rights and obligations towards their children. Accordingly, and contrary to the applicant’s suggestion that she was closer to the girls because of their gender, the gender of a parent could not be a factor which determined who a child should reside with. 40. As to temporary protective measures, the Kaunas Regional Court observed that, as a rule, they were aimed at guaranteeing compliance with a future court decision. Accordingly, the first-instance court, when adopting a decision after examining merits of the case, was not bound by earlier decisions on temporary protective measures. 41. Following a complaint by the applicant, on 1 June 2012 the Ombudsperson issued a report dismissing allegations by the applicant about the partiality of the Marijampolė service because of its failure to provide her with information and consultations. The Ombudsperson relied on the Court’s judgment in Mihailova v. Bulgaria (no. 35978/02, § 97, 12 January 2006), where it did not find a violation of Article 8, having found that irrespective of obstructions by the applicant’s former husband, the applicant’s own lack of understanding of the need for careful preparation as a precondition to effective enforcement of her custody rights played a significant role in the events. In the instant case, attempts had been made more than once to hand the children over to the applicant and meetings had been organised with psychologists, child care specialists and representatives of educational institutions as to enforcement of the court decisions to transfer the children. Moreover, the Ombudsperson had already examined the Marijampolė service’s work in February 2010, and did not find that it did not take action to help the applicant to have contact with her children. The service also correctly placed the responsibility for the well-being of the children on both parents. 42. On 5 September 2012 the principal of the girls’ school in Marijampolė issued a note stating that during the school year 2011/2012 the applicant had not visited the school. She did not come to school on 1 September 2012 either. 43. On 18 October 2012 the Ombudsperson dismissed the applicant’s repeated complaint accusing the Marijampolė service of failing in its duties to provide assistance and organise contact with the children. The Ombudsperson established that even though the contact order between the mother and the girls had been set in place as early as 8 November 2011 by the Marijampolė District Court, she had not yet tried to make use of it. Furthermore, the Marijampolė service had asked the applicant’s lawyers to meet at its premises, offered to inform E.B. of that meeting and asked the applicant’s lawyers for that purpose to choose a suitable date, but the applicant had not responded. For its part, the Kaunas service had also invited the applicant for a conversation so that she could express her wishes and preferences as to her contact with the girls, and so that the service could assist her. It was only when the applicant had not shown up that the Kaunas child care specialists had suggested to her lawyers that she communicate with the girls by letters via the Marijampolė child care specialists. It had also been indicated to the applicant that she had the opportunity to directly communicate with her daughters in the presence of a psychologist, and that could be discussed with the Marijampolė service. The girls’ school in Marijampolė had also informed the Ombudsperson that the applicant had started communicating with the girls by letters since December 2011; between December 2011 and April 2012 three letters from her had been received, though the girls had refused to accept the last one. The school had thus suggested that the applicant choose another means of communicating with her daughters and asked the child care specialists to provide facilities for that purpose. Given the child care authorities and the school’s suggestions for the applicant to communicate with her daughters directly (tiesiogiai), which the applicant had disregarded, it was not clear to the Ombudsperson why the applicant preferred to communicate with her daughters by letters. On this point the Ombudsperson pointed out that under Article 3.170 of the Civil Code parents who lived separately had the right and an obligation to communicate with their children and be involved in their upbringing; children, for their part, had a right to regular and direct contact with both parents, irrespective of their place of residence. 44. On 15 June 2012 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. Without arguing that the appellate court’s decisions not to summon witnesses for examination and not to hold a hearing had affected the outcome of the litigation, she primarily challenged the lower courts’ assessment of the evidence, insisting that they had erred in concluding that living with their father was in the best interests of the children. She also asserted that E.B.’s previous convictions in Germany for crimes of sexual violence and drug-related offences were significantly weightier in terms of his moral values than her conviction in Lithuania for forgery of documents. The applicant was further dissatisfied with the appellate court’s refusal to admit in evidence documents related to her correspondence with her daughters, which she obtained after she had already lodged her appeal. In his written reply, E.B. argued that the lower courts had properly examined the entirety of the evidence. He submitted that the applicant had always known about his earlier convictions in Germany; however, they had expired a long time ago. It was unfair for her to bring up that issue now. E.B. also observed that the proceedings had been pending for more than two years. During that period the applicant had specified her claims and submitted requests to the court on more than one occasion. The Kaunas Regional Court’s acceptance to re-examine the evidence and question witnesses would have only delayed the proceedings. Given that the applicant had not asked for an oral hearing, the appellate court’s decision to pursue proceedings in writing had been reasonable. 45. In a final ruling of 14 December 2012, adopted in written proceedings, the Supreme Court observed that the child’s interests were the primary consideration when examining custody cases. The cassation court also relied on the Court’s judgment in Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland ([GC], no. 41615/07, § 139, ECHR 2010), which said that an in-depth examination of the entire family situation was necessary to achieve the best result for the child. For the Supreme Court, such a result had been achieved in the present case. The lower courts had analysed the level of attachment to each parent and established that the girls, who lived with the father, were fond of him. Those courts had also noted psychologists’ reports that the girls could entirely independently form their own opinion about which parent to live with, and had held that the children’s opinion was one of the criteria when evaluating the entirety of evidence, and the girls had expressed such a wish during the court hearing. Even though the fact that the girls lived with their father could influence their formation of a negative opinion about their mother, it had not been established that the mother was barred from communicating with them; to be interested in their lives and visit them at school could thus form a positive opinion about her and make their emotional bond stronger. The first-instance court had also issued a contact order and thus the applicant’s contact rights with her daughters had not been restricted. Even though the applicant had stated that she lived in Lithuania, the evidence showed that she had declared place of residence as Germany, where she had taken part in court proceedings so that the name of her third child could be registered. As to E.B.’s convictions in Germany, those offences had been committed in 1996 and 1998 and his convictions had expired a long time ago. There was no proof that he could have a negative impact on the girls. On the contrary, the girls studied well at school and took part in extracurricular activities. It followed that the courts had been correct in not giving particular weight to those convictions. Overall, it was thus in the best interests of the girls to stay with their father. Lastly, whilst noting that when refusing to admit in evidence new documents submitted by the applicant the appellate court had not explained whether they were relevant to the merits of the case, the Supreme Court held that this did not affect the overall lawfulness of the appellate court’s ruling. 46. After the Marijampolė District Court’s decision of 9 July 2010 stating that the girls should reside with the applicant became final, and following the applicant’s request of 26 August 2010 transmitting her the writ of execution, the bailiff took measures to enforce it (also see paragraph 17 in fine). Meetings were organised with the child care specialists, representatives of the girls’ school and psychologists. Both parents were involved in that process. 47. The first attempt to hand the girls over at their school in November 2010 failed because on that day the girls fell ill and did not go to school. The court then established that their absence was proved by medical certificates, and the court order for transfer did not specify where it would take place. Accordingly, the father could not be blamed for an unsuccessful transfer. 48. The next attempt to transfer the girls was made in January 2011, when it was decided that the girls would be handed over at their home. This attempt did not produce results because on that date the applicant was arrested on charges of forgery of documents. 49. The third attempt to hand over the girls was at their father’s home in February 2011. It failed because, even though the bailiff, child care specialists, police and both parents were present, neither girl wished to leave with their mother. During the transfer the applicant asked to be left alone in the room with the girls, and her wish was granted. However, even after that the girls expressed a clear wish not to leave with her. In the report about that attempted transfer the bailiff underlined that the transfer of a child could not be equated to the transfer of an object. Taking into account the clearly expressed wishes of the children, and to avoid psychological trauma and to protect the children’s interests, physical force could not be used in that situation. The child care authorities supported this argument. The bailiff’s recommendation, based on Article 771 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was that the manner of enforcing the court order for transfer should be changed to preserve the children’s interests. The bailiff’s letter specified that her findings could be appealed against to the Marijampolė District Court. The bailiff then also asked the Marijampolė District Court to examine how the court order for the girls’ transfer should be enforced without compromising their interests. 50. Eventually, by a decision of 20 June 2012 the bailiff discontinued the enforcement proceedings, because it had been decided that the girls should reside with their father (see paragraphs 39 and 45 above). 51. By a decision of 17 March 2011 in separate criminal proceedings, a court found E.B. guilty of failing to comply with the court order of 9 July 2010. He was fined approximately EUR 750 (2,600 Lithuanian litai). The court however dismissed a civil claim by the applicant for non-pecuniary damage, noting that the girls themselves had refused to go and reside with their mother. The court also noted that no evidence had been provided to prove the applicant’s contention that the children’s refusal to be handed over to their mother had been a direct consequence of E.B.’s actions. 52. Alleging that the girls’ father had had a negative influence on their daughters, and relying on the psychologists’ reports about parental alienation syndrome (see paragraph 25 above), on 8 September 2011 the applicant asked the prosecutor to start criminal proceedings in respect of E.B. for abusing his rights and duties as a parent (Article 163 of the Criminal Code, see paragraph 63 below). 53. By a decision of 16 September 2011, the prosecutor refused to initiate a pre-trial investigation. He noted that earlier that month Marijampolė child care specialists had visited E.B.’s home and the girls had eagerly communicated with them, without their father present. The girls felt comfortable and at ease; they had no demands. They had also explained that the applicant did not visit them or call. The prosecutor established that E.B. had not committed any unlawful acts in respect of his daughters. By a decision of 4 October 2011, the District Court upheld the prosecutor’s decision.