Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
View all articles
Authors

CONTACT: Kopf and Liberda v Austria (Application No 1598/06)

Sep 29, 2018, 21:28 PM
Slug : ApplicationNo1598-06
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 6, 2012, 11:16 AM
Article ID : 97831

(European Court of Human Rights; 17 January 2012)

The 2-year-old child had been removed from his mother after she set fire to their home after drug use and both had to be rescued. The child remained with foster parents for 46 months and they applied to adopt him. The mother recovered, was allowed access and tried to regain custody. The foster parents applied to have contact with the child. The Austrian civil code provided that the court could grant contact to third persons if failure to do so would endanger the child's well-being. It was evident the child was vehemently opposed to contact and had re-established a good bond with his mother.  He had not been in contact with the foster parents for 3 years. The regional court and supreme courts dismissed the foster parent's appeals on Art 8 grounds.

The Austrian courts had failed in the procedural requirement implicit in Art 8 to deal diligently with the request for contact. Proceedings had lasted 3 1/2 years during which time the foster parents had no contact with the child and he had re-established the relationship with his mother. That delay had a direct adverse impact on the foster parents: at the start of proceedings the welfare officer was recommending contact but at the conclusion of proceedings the district court found that if the proceedings had been concluded earlier there would have been good reason to order contact.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from