Families sue municipality over boy’s death and girl’s life-threatening constipation

Families of two children who stayed at Heimdal, a municipal care facility in Slagelse, are suing Slagelse Municipality over alleged failures at the facility, DR reported. The case began Monday at the Eastern High Court and will be heard over three days.

Lucas Gildberg Kaiser, a two-year-old boy born with brain damage, was found dead at Heimdal on 3 February 2012. He had been placed there for respite care on a regular basis.

Records from the night incorrectly stated that Lucas had slept well. He had in fact died. His cause of death was pneumonia.

His parents argue that he might have survived if staff had checked on him during the night and called for help. They are seeking 300,000 kroner in compensation from the municipality.

The case also concerns Maigen Juki Butzbach, who stayed at Heimdal in respite care from the age of five until October 2020.

Maigen was born with a chromosomal abnormality, abnormal airways, stiff lungs, a malformed heart and severely limited kidney function. She has no speech and depends on other people for help.

According to her mother and her lawyers, the assistance she received at Heimdal was inadequate. Authorities have identified repeated problems at the facility, including during inspection visits. In February 2020, Maigen developed life-threatening constipation.

Her mother is seeking 422,804 kroner in compensation. The claims, including interest, will total more than one million kroner, according to the claim.

The families argue that the municipality is liable both as the authority responsible for upholding the children’s rights and as the employer responsible for errors and negligence by its staff.

Slagelse Municipality acknowledges that the European Convention on Human Rights is relevant to the case but rejects the existence of an actual obligation to pay compensation.

The Local Government Denmark association has joined the case in support of Slagelse Municipality. A court in Næstved referred the case to the High Court in 2023 because of its principled nature.

After the hearing, the case will be taken under consideration for judgment. The parties may then appeal to the Supreme Court.