1. First, the Commission uses the rationale of ‘health and morals’ as originally intended.
2. Second, the Commission uses an ‘even if’ reasoning. It stresses that ‘even if’ the adolescent and her boyfriend had something which should be considered ‘private life’ (which it does not want to establish), [‘Even assuming that the wish of the applicant to be with her boyfriend, or her staying with him for a few days, could constitute private life,’] it would still be in the interest of her health and morals to be returned to her parents.
3. Third, it stresses that ‘As a general proposition, and in the absence of any special circumstances, the obligation of children to reside with their parents and to be otherwise subjected to a particular control is necessary for the protection of children’s health and morals, although it might constitute, from a particular child’s point of view, an interference with his or her own private life.’