Spotlight
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
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Will government vouchers prove a game-changer for family mediation?
Analysis of data to evaluate the government’s £500 family mediation voucher scheme is in full swing. It’s not yet complete but, as the initiative nears an end, the signs appear...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
Recently, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making misogyny a...
Guidance on allocation and gatekeeping for public children proceedings to remain in place
On 5 June 2020, the President of the Family Division made two amendments to his Guidance on Allocation and Gatekeeping for Care, Supervision and other Proceedings under Part IV of the Children...
Key challenges and the role of the family advisor in facilitating a successful succession plan
Kelly Noel-Smith, Private Client Partner, Forsters LLPRosie Schumm, Family Partner, Forsters LLPAnna Ferster, Family Associate, Forsters LLPHow best to pass on wealth to the next generation is a...
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