The complainant requested an inquiry into the procedure of the Plzeň 3 Municipal Ward Authority (acting as the body for social and legal protection of children, hereinafter the BSLPC) in the performance of curatorship ad litem with respect to the child. The complainant criticised the BSLPC inter alia for proposing that the court ordered institutionalisation of her daughter for a trial period of 6 months despite being aware that she duly cared for the child and had appropriate conditions for such care at her partner’s place.

The Ombudsman found errors in the procedure of the BSLPC that proposed ordering institutionalisation simply on the grounds of doubts regarding the mother’s ability to manage her role after leaving the children’s home. This, in heropinion, is completely unacceptable. The BSLPC proposed that the court should institutionalise the child despite there being no serious and legitimate reasons for this measure and disregarding the fact that the child’s mother would in fact care for the child outside a children’s home. Institutionalisation is by no means a measure that should be used as a “trial period” for proving a person’s capability to duly exercise parental rights and duties.

After the inquiry report, the authority identified with the Ombudsman's legal view that filing the application for institutionalisation would be disproportionate. It acquainted social workers with the conclusions made in the inquiry report and “discussed the report in detail with a clear conclusion to comply with the views of the Public Defender of Rights”.