Tokens: 3
.
The
majority
considers
that
the
domestic
authorities
did
not
give
sufficient
consideration
to
the
best
interests
of
the
child
(
see
paragraph
65
of
the
judgment
)
,
and
did
not
focus
sufficiently
on
reuniting
mother
and
child
.
In
my
view
the
domestic
authorities
gave
priority
to
the
child
’s
physical
and
psychological
well
-
being
when
there
was
ample
reason
to
believe
that
the
child
was
endangered
.
I
think
the
domestic
authorities
were
in
a
position
to
make
the
right
decision
as
to
where
the
priority
should
lie
.
That
is
what
prompts
me
to
dissent
from
the
majority
,
although
I
do
acknowledge
respectfully
that
there
are
strong
procedural
arguments
in
favour
of
the
majority
’s
position
as
well
.
I
prefer
,
however
,
to
lay
the
emphasis
somewhat
differently
.
It
may
be
wise
for
our
Court
to
display
modesty
in
performing
its
role
when
it
comes
to
establishing
the
facts
.
The
Court
rightly
recognises
that
,
in
making
decisions
in
so
sensitive
an
area
,
local
authorities
and
courts
are
faced
with
a
task
that
is
extremely
difficult
.
Moreover
,
national
authorities
will
have
had
the
benefit
of
direct
contact
with
all
the
persons
concerned
,
often
at
the
very
stage
when
care
measures
are
being
envisaged
or
immediately
after
their
implementation
.
There
is
therefore
a
need
to
allow
them
a
certain
margin
of
appreciation
in
deciding
how
best
to
deal
with
the
cases
before
them
,
and
it
is
accordingly
not
the
Court
’s
task
to
substitute
itself
for
the
domestic
authorities
but
to
review
,
in
the
light
of
the
Convention
,
the
decisions
taken
and
assessments
made
by
those
authorities
.
I
observe
that
there
is
no
indication
that
the
possibilities
of
reunification
have
been
progressively
diminished
or
destroyed
,
as
the
majority
feared
would
be
the
foreseeable
consequence
of
the
domestic
approach
.
On
the
contrary
,
the
reality
shows
a
different
course
of
events
:
visiting
rights
were
established
after
December
2013
and
there
is
a
possibility
of
a
reunification
in
some
form
in
the
future
.
The
child
is
being
cared
for
by
an
aunt
and
thus
within
the
wider
family
.
The
withdrawal
of
parental
rights
is
not
irreversible
either
,
because
reinstatement
can
be
applied
for
on
the
ground
of
an
improved
situation
(
Article
70
Family
Code
of
Moldova
)
.
Unfortunately
,
it
may
be
indicative
of
the
applicant
’s
continuing
problems
regarding
the
exercise
of
parental
responsibility
that
shortly
after
having
given
birth
to
a
second
child
she
consented
to
the
child
’s
adoption
.
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O