Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles

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 :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from