Page 19 of 30 whole; it must determine whether the reasons adduced to justify the interferences at issue are "relevant and sufficient" (see, amongst other authorities, mutatis mutandis, the Lingens judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, pp. 25-26, § 40). 69. In concluding that there had been a violation of Article 8 (art. 8), the majority of the Commission based itself on the care decisions concerning the applicants’ children in combination with the placement of the children in separate foster homes and far away from the applicants. In this respect, the Court shares the view of the Government that these are matters which should be examined separately: the factors and considerations which are relevant to an assessment of their necessity may not be the same. 2. The taking of the children into care and the refusals to terminate care 70. The applicants contended that it was not necessary to take the children into and maintain them in care; they alleged, inter alia, that no concrete facts had been established showing that the children were in danger, that there were no substantiated reasons justifying the taking into care and that there were no valid motives for refusing the requests for termination of care. The Government contested this allegation. The majority of the Commission, on the other hand, was not convinced that the factual basis was so grave as to justify the taking into care, although it did observe that it was "understandable that the care order was not lifted". 71. Before turning to the substance of this issue, it is convenient to deal with an initial point. In its above-mentioned W v. the United Kingdom judgment, the Court held that certain procedural requirements were implicit in Article 8 (art. 8): as regards decisions in child-care matters, the parents must "have been involved in the decision-making process, seen as a whole, to a degree sufficient to provide them with the requisite protection of their interests" (Series A no. 121, p. 29, § 64). The Court agrees with the Commission that this requirement was satisfied as regards the care decisions themselves. Mr. and Mrs. Olsson attended a number of case conferences and were present at the meetings which preceded the Council’s decision of 16 September 1980 to take the children into care and its decision of 1 June 1982 not to terminate care (see paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 27 above). They also attended hearings before the County Administrative Court and the Administrative Court of Appeal. Furthermore, they were legally represented during all the relevant judicial proceedings. (a) The taking into care 72. In its judgment of 30 December 1980 (see paragraph 13 above), the County Administrative Court set out the following reasons for confirming the Council’s decision of 16 September 1980 to take the children into care: (a) the children had for several years been living in an unsatisfactory home environment as a result of the parents’ inability to satisfy the children’s need of care, stimulation and supervision; (b) Stefan and Thomas disclosed a clear retardation in their development and all three children were backward in language development; (c) there was a great risk that Helena would develop negatively if she stayed in the parents’ home; (d) preventive measures had been tried for several years, but without any resulting improvement; (e) the health and development of the children were jeopardised as a result of the parents’ present inability to give them satisfactory care and education. These reasons are clearly "relevant" to a decision to take a child into public care. However, it is an interference of a very serious order to split up a family. Such a step must be supported by sufficiently sound and weighty considerations in the interests of the child; as the Commission rightly observed, it is not enough that the child would be better off if placed in care. In order to determine whether the foregoing reasons can be considered "sufficient" for the purposes of Article 8 (art. 8), the Court must have regard to the case as a whole (see paragraph 68 above) and notably to the circumstances in which the decision was taken. 73. Prior to the Council’s care decision of 16 September 1980, a number of different social http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/viewhbkm.asp?sessionId=60525252&skin=hudoc-en&a... 10/13/2010