Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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
Help separated parents ditch avoidance strategies that stop them resolving differences
The desire to avoid conflict with an ex is the primary reason that separated parents do not get to see their children.  That’s an eye-opening finding from a survey of 1,105 separated...
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
View all articles
Authors

ADOPTION: A, K and L v Croatia (Application No 37956/11)

Sep 29, 2018, 18:38 PM
Slug : adoption-a-k-and-l-v-croatia-application-no-37956-11
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jan 17, 2013, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 101417

(European Court of Human Rights, 8 January 2012)

The child, now 4 years old, was removed days after birth due to concerns that the mother was unemployed, had no income, was supported by her mother, attended a special needs programme in school and lived with her mother and her mentally ill brother in a dilapidated house with no heating. The welfare centre applied for an order divesting the mother of her parental rights. The order was granted on the basis that the mother suffered from a mild mental disability and was not able to provide proper care for the child. The mother was not represented in those proceedings.

The mother, through her legal aid lawyer, sought to restore her parental rights out of time and submitted that the home had been renovated, her brother was now being cared for outside of the home and that her mild mental disability should not be used as a reason for depriving her of her parental rights. The mother's appeal was dismissed due to the child already being placed for adoption.

The mother alleged the Art 8 rights of her and her son had been infringed in that she could not effectively participate in the proceedings and that her son had been put up for adoption without her knowledge, consent or participation in proceedings.

The court considered that the national authorities should have ensured that in view of the importance of the proceedings at issue, that the mother's interests were adequately protected. While consent was not necessary due to her loss of parental rights given that the opportunity to appeal was available it was indispensible that a parent had the opportunity to exercise that right before the child was put up for adoption for that right to have any meaning. The mother's rights under Art 8 had been breached.

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