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...
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

ABDUCTION: X v Latvia (Application No 27853/09)

Sep 29, 2018, 19:23 PM
Slug : XvLatviaApplicationNo2785309
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jan 25, 2012, 11:19 AM
Article ID : 97747

(European Court of Human Rights; 13 December 2011)

The mother was a Latvian national who lived in Australia and acquired citizenship. She met her partner in Australia when she was pregnant. The identity of the father was unknown but the partner lived with the mother.  The couple separated, and the mother and child returned to Latvia. The partner applied to the Australian family court to establish his parental rights and made a Hague Convention application.

The Court held the partner shared joint parental responsibility . The Latvian court ordered the mother to return the child to Australia. The mother failed to return to Australia and by chance the partner met the mother and child at a shopping centre in Latvia, where he took the child to Estonia to commence the trip to Australia. A disciplinary investigation in Latvia found there were insufficient regulations to avoid the violent and traumatic execution of the court orders in similar cases.

In Australia the partner was granted sole parental responsibility for the child, the mother was restrained from discussing publically the child or the partner,  she was granted supervised contact and until the child reached 11 the mother was prevented from communicating with the child's pre-school or school facility or with a child or parent of a child attending the same facility. She was also prohibited from communicating with the child in Latvian.

The mother alleged a breach of Arts 6 and 8 of the European Convention. The Latvian court's order for the return of the child had been in accordance with law and in pursuit of a legitimate aim but the court's approach lacked an in-depth examination of the whole family situation which rendered the return order a disproportionate interference.  The court should have assessed what safeguards were in place to protect the child's interests and a consideration of whether the child's contact with her mother would be maintained if she were returned to Australia. Breach of Art 8.

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