Spotlight
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...
Spotlight
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
Authors

ADOPTION: Kurochkin v Ukraine (App No 42276/08)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:53 PM
Slug : adoption-kurochkin-v-ukraine-app-no-42276-08
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 25, 2010, 11:05 AM
Article ID : 90961

(European Court of Human Rights; 20 May 2010)

In the course of proceedings to end the adoptive father's marriage, a report was produced stating that the child's relationship with the adoptive father was positive, and that the adoptive father had authority over the child, whereas the child's relationship with the adoptive mother was negative. It recommended cancellation of the adoption, in view of the deterioration of the couple's marriage. The adoptive mother asked the court to cancel the adoption, on the grounds that the child had attacked her. Both the adoptive father and the child opposed this application (in relation to the father but not the mother); the child wanted to remain with the adoptive father and the adoptive father was willing to care for him. Shortly after the adoptive father remarried the adoption was annulled by the court, explicitly disregarding the child's wish to remain with the adoptive father, on the basis that the adoptive father had not addressed the child's aggression towards women, and that a sanction was needed. Although the court ordered that the child be taken into care (for placement in an institution) he remained with the former adoptive father, who was eventually appointed the child's ‘guardian'.

The ECHR, noting that lawful and genuine adoption established family relations, and attracted respect for family life, found a breach of Art 8. The appointment of the ‘adoptive father' as guardian did not remedy the interference with his Art 8 rights. Although the wide scope of the discretion to annul an adoption conferred on the court by Ukrainian law was reasonable and acceptable for Art 8 purposes, in this case there had been no issue with the applicant's ability to care for the child, the decision was based on a judgment that he lacked authority over the child and the impossibility of family life resuming with both adoptive parents. The domestic court did not seem to have considered the possibility of annulling the adoption in relation to the mother, but not in relation to the father. Punishment of the child's behaviour was not a relevant reason for splitting up an established family unit. The court seemed not to have considered the impact of the decision on the future well-being of the child, or considered alternative strategies to deal with the child's behaviour.

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