Child Placement Not Deprivation of Liberty under Compulsory Care Statute

The court determined that the placement of a three-and-a-half-year-old child in a standard children's home following the removal of custody from the father did not constitute an "institution" involving a deprivation of liberty under the relevant statutory provisions concerning compulsory care measures. The reasoning centered on the principle that for an institutional placement to qualify as a restrictive deprivation of liberty, the restriction on the child's freedom must be greater than that experienced in a normal family setting, and legal precedent suggests this heightened restriction generally applies to significantly older children (11 to 16 years old), whereas a child under six does not typically experience a greater restriction in a home than in a typical family. Consequently, the decision regarding custody removal was subject to administrative appeal to the governmental prefect, not the judicial recourse designated for involuntary confinement decisions.