ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:357 Amsterdam Court of Appeal February 7, 2017
Since the new legislation as of Jan. 1, 2015, a voluntary out-of-home placement is no longer possible in any case where there is a pronounced supervision order for the children. Thus, an order for out-of-home placement is always required. In this case, the children still lived at the same address and their aunt had gone to live with the children because mother was temporarily absent due to detention. The mere fact that mother, as custodial parent, is not present means that an order for out-of-home placement (MUHP) is necessary. The MUHP also means that a foster care screening including a declaration of no objection from the Child Care and Protection Board is required. In this ruling, the Court of Appeal, unlike the District Court under r.o. 5.7, specifically considered that the children must stay with auntie regardless of the outcome because this is in the best interest of the children:
"It followsfrom the foregoing that the contested order must be upheld. In doing so, the court assumes, unlike the court, that the children's placement with the aunt will continue. The court noted the GI's statement at the hearing that the children will remain with the aunt, regardless of the outcome of the foster care screening. The court assumes that the GI will honor this commitment."
However, the legal status of the Court's consideration is tricky. The RvdK and the certified institution have kept the commitment. With an MUHP, the children are still living at their home address with their aunt.