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
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...
New complaints handling guide offers advice to local authorities
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is today issuing new guidance on effective complaint handling for local authorities.Based on previous documents, the new guide offers practical,...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Family Law Awards winners announced in virtual awards ceremony
The winners of the Family Law Awards 2020 were announced at 4pm during a much-anticipated virtual awards ceremony. Over the past ten years, the Family Law Awards has recognised the leading players in...
Behaviour-based divorces still merit close consideration
Some recent cases illustrate the evidential and procedural issues involved in dealing with proofs on the merits of divorce, which are worth considering even though most cases may conclude on a...
View all articles

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