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...
Latest articles
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
The suspension, during lockdown, of prison visits for children: was it lawful?
Jake Richards, 9 Gough ChambersThis article argues that the suspension on prison visits during this period and the deficiency of measures to mitigate the impact of this on family life and to protect...
View all articles

Buchleither v Germany (Application No 20106/13)

Sep 29, 2018, 21:32 PM
Private law children – Contact – Suspension – Art 8, European Convention
The European Court of Human Rights held by four votes to three that there had been no violation of Article 8 of the European Convention.
Slug : buchleither-v-germany-application-no-20106-13
Meta Title : Buchleither v Germany (Application No 20106/13)
Meta Keywords : Private law children – Contact – Suspension – Art 8, European Convention
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 5, 2016, 03:21 AM
Article ID : 115316
(European Court of Human Rights, 28 April 2016)

Private law children – Contact – Suspension – Art 8, European Convention

The European Court of Human Rights held by four votes to three that there had been no violation of Article 8 of the European Convention.

The unmarried mother and father separated shortly after the child's birth in 2003. The child had since lived with the mother who had sole parental responsibility. The parents had throughout the child's life been in conflict about contact arrangements but they initially agreed to the father having supervised contact. In 2008 the court suspended contact for a one year period. After the end of the suspension period interim contact was ordered on a fortnightly basis, but that did not take place. Once again, at the mother's request, contact was suspended.

In 2011 at a final hearing, in reliance of the opinion of a psychiatrist, the court suspended contact indefinitely, as that was considered the least damaging option. The child was found to be suffering as a result of the conflict between her parents. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision.

The father now applied to the Court of Human Rights, alleging that the indefinite suspension of contact with his child amounted to a violation of Art 8 of the European Convention.

There could be no dispute that the suspension of contact constituted a breach of Art 8. The decision to suspend contact was based on considerations relating to the child's welfare. The decision-making process relied on detailed and extensive information from assessments and expert opinion. The process was fair and afforded respect to those involved. In this instance, the decision to suspend contact did not overstep the margin of appreciation afforded to the domestic courts in matters concerning a parent's contact with his or her child, and could still be regarded as necessary in a democratic society. There had, accordingly, been no violation of Art 8.


(Application no. 20106/13)



28 April 2016

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