6.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Ljubljana. 7.  He and M. have three children, triplets born on 28 October 1996. 8.  On 20 January 2003 the Kranj District Court dissolved the marriage of the applicant and M., and determined that M. would have sole custody of their three children. 9.  In November 2002 the applicant and M. concluded an agreement on contact arrangements with the assistance of the Kranj Social Work Centre (hereinafter “the Centre”). According to the agreement, contact between the applicant and his children was to take place twice a week and during the holidays. 10.  The contact meetings initially took place without any apparent problems. However, the Centre’s records show that in 2004 M. reported that the children no longer wanted contact with their father. In June 2006 M. sent a letter via her lawyer to the applicant, notifying him that contact was no longer possible because the children had been distressed in relation to the applicant’s visits. The Centre’s records of June 2006 indicate that the applicant was willing to cooperate with the Centre and attend parental counselling with M., who said that she was going to attend therapy sessions with the children, so that they could deal with the distress they felt in relation to their father. No contact between the applicant and the children took place between July 2006 and November 2008 (see paragraph 22 below). 11.  In the years following the dissolution of marriage (see paragraph 8 above), the relationship between the applicant and M. deteriorated. The Centre’s records indicate that by 2003 they rarely talked to each other and that their troubled relationship prevented the conclusion of any agreement with respect to the contact arrangements. 12.  On 5 July 2006 the applicant initiated court proceedings, seeking an order to formalise his contact with the children three times a week and during the holidays. He argued, inter alia, that the mother had been trying to restrict his contact with the children and that the children had been refusing contact because she had manipulated them. The applicant also believed that the Centre had not been impartial in dealing with the case. 13.  In her submissions to the court, M. objected to the applicant’s allegations, maintaining that she had never restricted contact or been manipulating the children. She argued that the children had been expressing their discontent with the contact sessions since 2004 and that in 2006 they had started rejecting contact with their father because they had been afraid of his anger and criticism. 14.  The Centre in its opinion noted that both parents should join individual therapy. In case they did not manage to come to an agreement with respect to the temporary contact arrangements, it suggested the court to suspend the contact. 15.  On 6 July 2006 the court issued an interim order stating that contact would continue in accordance with the 2002 agreement between the parents (see paragraph 9 above). On 14 July 2006 the applicant applied to amend the interim order, proposing that the mother be required to pay a monetary fine and that police assistance at the time of contact be given in the event that the bailiff did not succeed in taking the children to contact. 16.  On 13 November 2006 a court-appointed psychiatrist, Dr T., submitted her opinion to the court. As regards the children, she noted that they expressed fear and reluctance to the way the applicant had acted in the past (yelling, physical punishment, the way they played games and his negative remarks about M.). They found the contact unpleasant and refused it. The expert further noted that while M. had not limited contact, she had stopped encouraging the children. Dr T. suggested that contact take place once every other week, initially in the presence of someone the children trusted, and in circumstances permitting their interests to be taken into account. Dr T. also opined that in order to improve the relationship between the applicant and his children, the parents would benefit from counselling. 17.  On 29 April 2008 the Kranj District Court (in non-contentious proceedings) granted the applicant regular contact with his children once a week with an eventual extension of contact to weekends, until the end of the school year in the presence of the school psychologist or someone else from their school. The court also annulled the interim order and dismissed the request to amend it (see paragraph 15 above), finding that at the time the request had been made the court had not had sufficient grounds for making the decision. 18.  On 2 October 2008 the Ljubljana Higher Court when deciding the appeal determined that starting from 12 November 2008 contact between the applicant and his children would take place every other Wednesday from 2 until 3.30 p.m. in the presence of an expert caseworker from the Centre. It also determined that M. was to ensure that the children went to the Centre. Relying on the opinion of Dr T. (see paragraph 16 above), the court held that the children had refused contact with the applicant and that this was not the result of the manipulation of M. but originated in their negative experiences with the contact sessions in the past. Nonetheless, in view of the fact that the father and the children had had no contact since June 2006 and that the contact sessions had never before been carried out with the assistance of experts, the court concluded that the negative attitude of the children was not enough to discontinue contact. When fixing the new contact arrangements, the Higher Court emphasised that the presence of an expert from the Centre at the contact sessions was mainly to provide expert assistance in establishing mutual trust between the applicant and the children. It also opined that it was not necessary for the contact sessions to take place at the Centre, and that they could take place somewhere in the vicinity, in a more relaxed environment for the children and the applicant. 19.  The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, which the Supreme Court rejected as inadmissible on 18 February 2010. 20.  The Centre cancelled the first contact session scheduled for 12 November 2008 because it had received the relevant court decision (see paragraph 18 above) only two days before and had found the organisation of the session impossible. 21.  On 20 November 2008 the applicant and M. were invited to a meeting at the Centre to discuss and reach an agreement on how the contact sessions would work and be organised under the Centre’s supervision. No agreement was reached. Nonetheless, on 10 December 2008 the Centre sent its proposed expert guidelines (strokovna izhodišča) for the organisation of the contact sessions to the parents, outlining its expectations and tasks. The Centre records show that in the course of preparing the children for contact, the caseworkers talked to the children, who firmly rejected the idea of any contact with the applicant and asked the caseworkers for permission not to attend the contact sessions. 22.  On 26 November 2008 the first contact session between the applicant and the children took place under the supervision of two caseworkers of the Centre. The Centre’s records show that during the session the children frequently asked if they could leave and told the applicant that they did not want to see him. The caseworkers interrupted the session after around fifteen to twenty minutes because they decided that the continuation of the contact session was not in the children’s interests. The second contact session took place on 10 December 2008. According to the Centre’s records, at the beginning of the session the children again told the applicant that they did not want to see him. After one of the children left the session, the caseworker told the other two children that they could leave if they so wished, but that it was their opportunity to listen to what their father had to say. According to the Centre’s records, on 24 December 2008 the applicant arrived early to prepare for the third contact session. At the beginning of the session the children repeated that they did not want to see the applicant. The caseworker present at the session started crying and asked the father if he could feel the children’s distress. The Centre’s records show that on the next eight occasions, the last being on 15 April 2009, the applicant arrived early to prepare for the contact sessions, which lasted at most a couple of minutes before the children left the room. 23.  On 28 April 2009, after conducting an interview with the children, the Centre informed the applicant that a contact session scheduled for 29 April 2009 had been cancelled on the basis of section 119 of the Marriage and Family Relations Act (see paragraph 45 below) because it would be a serious psychological burden for the children. 24.  The sessions were supervised by a team of four caseworkers (a psychologist, social worker and two pedagogues), with two caseworkers present during each session. After every session the Centre’s caseworkers talked to the children and conducted a review (evalvacija) of contact with the parents. It appears from the Centre’s records of the interviews with the children that they expressed a dislike of their father and refused any contact with him. The records of 18 February and 4 March 2009 indicate that one of the caseworkers told the children that she believed that they did not want contact but that the court had decided differently. 25.  Meanwhile, the applicant via his lawyer repeatedly warned the Centre that they had not started with a meaningful implementation of the above-mentioned court decision (see paragraph 18 above). In particular, he complained that they had not offered any expert help to him or the children, had not been sufficiently active in helping to establish contact and had not cooperated with both parents. He also expressed the opinion that the Centre’s officials had been biased, as they knew the mother personally and had worked with her in business matters, and asked the Centre to appoint an independent expert who would not know either of the parents personally and could work with both of them in establishing mutual trust between the applicant and the children. The applicant also suggested that the school psychologist (whom the children trusted) join the process at the Centre. Lastly, he proposed organising contact sessions outside the Centre in a more informal environment, such as during a short trip with someone they trusted. 26.  The Centre’s expert team, composed of a psychologist, social worker, pedagogue (pedagog) and lawyer, met five times between December 2008 and May 2010 to discuss implementation of the contact order under the Centre’s supervision. On 15 January 2009 the expert team decided to propose to the court that it issue an interim order to suspend contact with immediate effect because the contact sessions were not in the children’s interests. 27.  On 11 October 2011 the Centre prepared a risk assessment for the children and an action plan for the children and parents (see paragraph 43 below). According to the assessment, the applicant did not trust the work of the caseworkers and was unaware of his problematic behaviour, while the mother had refused to attend counselling with the applicant and had been generally too passive. It opined that contact would benefit the children only if the parents, through the parental therapy (starševska terapija) suggested to them, changed their behaviour. 28.  On 30 January 2009 the Centre lodged an application with the Kranj District Court asking the court to order that contact be organised within the framework of family therapy, initially with the parents attending the therapy alone or, if that was not possible, to suspend contact between the applicant and the children. It held in this connection that a parent refusing to attend the therapy would be responsible for the absence of contact between the applicant and his children. The Centre simultaneously applied for an interim order to immediately suspend the applicant’s contact with his children. The Centre noted that, notwithstanding its professional work, and the applicant’s cooperation and good intentions, the children continued to categorically refuse any contact with the applicant. It also noted that the four Centre officials (caseworkers) who had been present during the contact sessions saw no prospect of the relationship between the applicant and the children improving in the framework of the supervised contact sessions and that the children were not willing participants in them. In such circumstances, in the absence of any relationship between the applicant and his children, and for the time being, they also did not foresee the possibility of organising contact sessions outside the Centre. It submitted that the conditions for the applicant maintaining contact with his children could only be created by the applicant and M. jointly, and that they had been unable to achieve this so far. In their further submissions to the court, the Centre noted that the contact sessions were a serious burden for the children and that the continuation of contact would amount to gradual psychological abuse. It also emphasised that the applicant and his lawyer did not trust the Centre and believed that the officials were biased. 29.  The applicant opposed the application, arguing that the Centre had aligned itself with M. and had neglected the obligations imposed on it by the court to monitor contact and assist the applicant and his children in improving their relationship (see paragraph 18 above). The activities of the Centre had been aimed at suspending contact instead of actively establishing it with the help of an expert. He noted, in particular, that at the first contact session the children had actively communicated with him. The first session after a long time had been crucial from an emotional standpoint, but had lasted only fifteen minutes because of the caseworker’s intervention. The next contact session had started with the caseworker’s appeal to the children that they could leave. He argued that the children had been put under systematic pressure by M. and, indirectly, the Centre. Moreover, the Centre had been biased in its submissions and the only impartial opinion − on which the court should base its decision − was that of the expert psychiatrist, Dr T. In the course of the proceedings the applicant also requested that the court issue an interim decision ordering M. to attend family therapy with him with a view to establishing communication between them. 30.  On 9 February 2009 the Kranj District Court dismissed the Centre’s request for an interim order to suspend contact between the applicant and his children (see paragraph 28 above). It held that the 2008 contact order had taken into account the applicant’s characteristics and attitude, as well as the fact that the children had not had any contact with him since 2006. In order to overcome the existing alienation and initial difficulties in re-establishing contact, the order specified a third party who would help and offer advice in this regard. The court noted that the records did not show that the Centre had played an active role in implementing the 2008 contact order. In particular, contact was limited to the children entering the Centre under strict protocol, stating that they did not want contact, and them leaving the premises together with the caseworkers. The court concluded that Dr T.’s recommendations regarding how the contact sessions should be conducted had not been followed properly. The court further held that there was no reason not to try systematic family therapy in parallel to the contact sessions at the Centre, especially by preparing the children for contact directly before the sessions. The children, represented in the proceedings by M., appealed against the decision. On 16 April 2009 the Ljubljana Higher Court allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the first-instance court. It noted that a critical change in circumstances had occurred since contact was formalised in 2008, and that there was a risk to the children’s psychological development. 31.  On 29 April 2009 the Kranj District Court issued an interim order temporarily suspending contact between the applicant and his children. The court observed that the children continued to refuse contact with the applicant and that during five supervised contact sessions there had been no progress in establishing a relationship between him and them. The court held that the Centre’s experts responsible for counselling were of the opinion that their attempts at establishing contact had been unsuccessful and not in the children’s interests, even though they had done everything possible. It thus concluded that continuing with contact would be a psychological burden, threatening the development of the children and that this could cause them irreparable harm. The applicant lodged an objection, arguing that the first-instance court had not taken into account the fact that the 2008 contact order had never been implemented because the Centre had not carried out any activities in this regard but had instead been working towards the discontinuation of contact. His objection was dismissed as unfounded. He then appealed. On 13 April 2011 the Ljubljana Higher Court dismissed the appeal, finding that it was preferable for the children not to be forced into contact with the applicant. The court reiterated that in terms of the interim order it was irrelevant what the cause was of the traumatic experience the children had in relation to contact, but noted that this could be relevant in the context of potential family therapy. 32.  During the proceedings the court asked the expert psychiatrist Dr T. to update the opinion provided during the 2008 proceedings (see paragraphs 17 and 18 above). Dr T. conducted interviews with each child and the parents. In her expert opinion of 20 October 2010 she noted that the children resented any contact with their father because they were preoccupied with their previous negative experiences with him (see paragraph 16 above). They saw it as a decision forced upon them which did not take into account their emotional needs and wishes. The expert observed that the children had not established an emotional connection with their father at a young age and had expressed an irrational fear of their father linked to them feeling insulted. Their resentment was also the main reason for the difficult implementation of supervised contact. Given their age and the circumstances, she believed that establishing contact would not benefit the children. In the opinion she also noted that M. had not prevented contact and that the children’s resentment did not seem to be based on the alleged manipulation. Furthermore, noting that the applicant was capable, motivated and eager to act in his relationship with the children in a way that would not harm them, the expert suggested that the applicant and M. start parental therapy. She explained that the process of forming a relationship with the father was still open and dynamic and that therapy was aimed at establishing mutual trust between parents. When giving evidence to the court (see paragraph 34 below) Dr T. pointed out that therapy involving counselling and teaching appropriate communication to both parents would stand an 80% chance of success. She also noted that M. should obtain some advice on appropriate communication with the children regarding the importance of their contact with their father and communication with the applicant and submitted that if M. refused to attend counselling, this would call into question her motivation to help the children. Lastly, the expert held that she had not noticed any mistakes in the work of the Centre’s caseworkers during the contact sessions. 33.  At a hearing on 21 June 2011 the judge suggested concluding an agreement outlining everyone’s participation in family therapy. While the Centre’s representative agreed, noting that this would be in the children’s best interests, M. refused to participate in any kind of family therapy. 34.  The Kranj District Court held four hearings at which it examined the expert Dr T., the applicant, two caseworkers from the Centre, the school psychologist and M. It rejected a request by the applicant that psychological tests be carried out. It found in this connection that, taking into account the children’s age, the examination by Dr T. was sufficient as it fully explained the relationship between the applicant and children and that a psychologist would offer no other specific knowledge relevant to the outcome of the case. 35.  On 21 June 2011 the Kranj District Court (in non-contentious proceedings) issued a decision on the basis of section 106(5) of the Marriage and Family Relations Act (see paragraph 45 below) discontinuing contact between the applicant and his children. It dismissed the remainder of the Centre’s application, for the obligatory participation in family therapy (see paragraph 28 above), and the applicant’s request for an interim measure ordering family therapy (see paragraph 29 above). The court observed that the supervised contact sessions had been unsuccessful, which had been acknowledged by the Centre, the expert psychiatrist and the applicant. It found that the children, who were almost fifteen years old at the time of the court’s deliberations and thus able to form their own opinion on contact (section 410 of the Civil Procedure Act, see paragraph 47 below), had categorically refused any contact with the father because of their past negative experiences and that supervised contact had caused them mental distress. It held that in such circumstances the reason for the interruption of contact was no longer important. It noted that the children were going through adolescence and that it was possible that they were displaying loyalty to M. by refusing contact with the applicant. In any case, the contact sessions were no longer in the children’s interests because they were a serious psychological burden for the children and were, due to the disagreements between the parents, traumatic for them. The court stated that, according to the expert’s opinion, any attempt to establish contact under the current conditions would not benefit the children. It also noted that, although the applicant was very motivated and keen to establish contact with the children, he had appeared stressed and under pressure during the supervised contact sessions. Moreover, the court held that he was partly responsible for unsuccessful contact because he had been too impatient, had felt offended and angry and had been unable or had not known how to get close to the children, for which he had unreasonably blamed the Centre’s caseworkers. Lastly, the court also found it inappropriate to order family therapy involving the participation of the children. It noted in this connection that M. had not agreed to it and that the children had clearly refused any cooperation with their father during the contact sessions and were seriously distressed. The latter was crucial for deciding that they should not be forced in any further proceedings for the establishment of contact. The court dismissed the applicant’s request for an interim measure ordering family therapy for the same reasons, interpreting it as therapy for all family members, including the children. 36.  The applicant appealed, maintaining, inter alia, that the solution for re-establishing contact between him and the children, as advised by Dr T., was family therapy, initially with the parents alone and later with the children, which had been refused by M. He disagreed with the court’s opinion that the reasons resulting in the discontinuation of contact were no longer relevant and pointed out that the children’s alienation from him was the result of wrong decisions taken by the administrative authorities and wrong assessment of the evidence by the court. He repeated his request to appoint a psychologist, who could explore the negative attitude of the children towards him. He also argued that the initiation of family therapy and a gradual introduction of visits would have been in the best interests of the children, who needed a father figure in their life, as had also been confirmed by Dr T. 37.  On 11 January 2012 the Ljubljana Higher Court upheld the Kranj District Court’s decision (see paragraph 35 above). In the court’s view, the main reason for the children’s negative attitude towards contact with the applicant were his personal characteristics, as indicated by the court expert, combined with the inadequate participation of M. It found that the opinion of expert Dr T. based on a paedopsychiatric examination of the children and psychiatric diagnostics had provided sufficient grounds for the decision to discontinue contact and that the court-appointed expert had concluded that further tests were unnecessary given the age of the children. The court also stressed that the decision to discontinue contact had not been based solely on the opinion of the children. Other evidence, namely the expert’s opinion, the Centre’s report and the hearing of M. and the applicant, confirmed that contact was not beneficial to the children, who continued to refuse any contact with the applicant. It confirmed that M. had not prevented contact but that, according to the expert’s opinion, she should have played a more active role. The court also observed that the expert believed that the children’s interests required that family therapy be carried out and that such therapy would have an 80% chance of success in the present case. However, the Higher Court found that there was no case-law on the question of whether a custodial parent could, without any relevant legal basis, be forced to participate in family therapy. It also found that family therapy should not, in any event, be ordered because it would only be successful if the applicant’s behaviour changed and M. displayed changes in her attitude. Lastly, although it had been established convincingly that family therapy could be successful in the present case, it had not been established equally convincingly that the applicant would succeed in overcoming the personal difficulties which had hindered the relationship between him and the children. 38.  On 18 April 2012 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint reiterating his previous complaints (see paragraph 36 above). 39.  On 15 June 2012 the Constitutional Court decided not to accept a constitutional complaint by the applicant for consideration, finding that it did not concern an important constitutional issue or entail a violation of human rights which had serious consequences for him. The Constitutional Court rejected his constitutional complaint in part regarding the lower courts’ decision not to order M. to join family therapy with him because the applicant lacked legal interest. 40.  On 8 April 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Inspectorate for Social Matters at the Ministry for Work, Family and Social Matters (hereinafter “the Inspectorate”). On 20 May 2009 the inspector to whom the case had been allocated (hereinafter “the Inspector”) asked the Centre to submit a written report and copies of the applicant’s family files. 41.  On 25 August 2011 the Inspectorate issued an audit report, which found a number of flaws in the Centre’s handling of the applicant’s case. As a preliminary matter the report noted that, the decision to conduct an extraordinary inspection of the work of the Centre in the present case had not been taken until 11 August 2010 because the Inspector had found it inappropriate to influence the ongoing court proceedings. However, shortly thereafter the Inspector had been absent from work for almost a year and had been unable to conclude the audit until 31 August 2011. 42.  As to the audit’s findings, the report stated that the Centre had violated several legislative provisions and professional regulations, including section 106 and 119 of the Marriage and Family Relations Act and section 92 of the Social Assistance Act (see paragraphs 45 and 46 below). The report found, in particular, that the Centre:
(i) had not identified the problem that the parents had not been acting in the children’s best interests as regards contact, particularly M., who had refused to cooperate with the applicant;
(ii) had, consequently, not tried to resolve the problems between the parents, which was one of the reasons that supervised contact could not be established;
(iii) had not offered the parents the social service of home or personal help even though the applicant had been willing to accept it;
(iv) had not assessed the attitude of M.’s parents, who had been living with the children, despite this issue being raised by the applicant;
(v) had not realised that, by not providing these services, it had been following M.’s wishes but failing to safeguard the children’s best interests;
(vi) despite having been entrusted by the court with the task of re-establishing contact between the applicant and his children it had concluded, on the basis of an incorrect assessment of the facts regarding the alleged harmful behaviour of the applicant during the contact visits in the past, that the children’s contact with the applicant should be discontinued;
(vii) had not provided proper reasoning for the request to discontinue contact, even though the discontinuation ordered by the court had been ultimately justified because the contact visits under the Centre’s supervision had not been in the children’s interests;
(viii) had not treated both parents equally and its officials’ methods of approach and communication, especially with the applicant, had been often inappropriate;
(ix) had not drawn up a proper assessment of the situation or an action plan;
(x) together with M., had burdened the then still young children with the need to make a decision concerning the desired contact even when different contact from that determined by the court could have been arranged only by the parents’ agreement; and
(xi) had not assessed how well the children had been prepared for contact. 43.  The report also noted that the situation in the applicant’s family could not be fixed or changed by any measures within the remit of the Inspectorate but only by the parents themselves. In particular, the report emphasised that the parents were responsible for the situation of distress and were the only ones who could resolve it (with the intervention of the Centre). Consequently, the Centre could not be held responsible for the absence of contact. The Inspector, however, noted that the director of the Centre should appoint a new team to deal with the applicant’s children, make a proper assessment of the situation and draw up an action plan, of which both parents should be informed. The Inspectorate also set out general measures to be undertaken in order to improve the Centre’s work in protecting children’s best interests following dissolution of marriage or family life. In particular, it stated that guidelines for internal monitoring, professional criteria for the improvement of teamwork, and special training programmes were to be set up for all officials responsible for assisting families after a marriage break-up. Finally, official J.P., who was the last remaining member of the team dealing with the applicant’s family in the department of family assistance, was asked to retake certain parts of her professional examination. 44.  On 31 August 2011 the Inspectorate ordered the Centre to carry out the proposed measures within the specified time-limit and to file written reports on their implementation. On 3 April 2012 the Inspectorate issued a final report on the extraordinary inspection, noting that the Centre had implemented all the imposed measures properly.