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
CB v EB [2020] EWFC 72
(Family Court, Mostyn J, 16 November 2020)Financial Remedies – Consent order – Application for set aside – Property values left husband with lower sums than anticipated – FPR...
No right (as yet) to be married legally in a humanist ceremony: R (on the application of Harrison and others) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 2096 (Admin)
Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow, Harvard Law School, Visiting Professor in Family Law, University of BuckinghamIn July 2020, six humanist couples brought an application for judicial review on the...
Controlling and coercive behaviour is gender and colour blind but how are courts meeting the challenge to protect victims
Maryam Syed, 7BRExamining the most recent caselaw in both family and criminal law jurisdictions this article discusses the prominent and still newly emerging issue of controlling and coercive domestic...
Roma families face disadvantage in child protection proceedings
Mary Marvel, Law for LifeWe have all become familiar with the discussion about structural racism in the UK, thanks to the excellent work of the Black Lives Matter movement. But it is less recognised...
The ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ – obligations and scope for change
Helen Brander, Pump Court ChambersQuite unusually, two judgments of the High Court in 2020 have considered financial provision for adult children and when and how applications can be made. They come...
View all articles
Authors

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.

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF BUCHLEITHER v. GERMANY
(Application no. 20106/13)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

28 April 2016

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