Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles
Authors

ADOPTION/HUMAN RIGHTS: Chepelev v Russia

Sep 29, 2018, 17:07 PM
Slug : chepelev-v-russia
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Aug 28, 2007, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 86767

(European Court of Human Rights; 26 July 2007)

The child's parents had separated when the child was one year old. Since then the father had seen the child only once, when she was 2, although he had sent a few telegrams. The Russian court approved the child's adoption by the mother's new husband, without the father's consent, on the basis that the father had not participated in the child's upbringing or provided financial support, whereas the mother's husband had provided for the child in every way; the child considered the mother's husband to be her only father. The father claimed that the decision was a breach of his right under Art 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 to respect for family life.

While the adoption order was undoubtedly an interference with the father's Art 8 rights, it was in accordance with the law, pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights and freedoms of the child, having been made in the child's best interests, and was not disproportionate, given the father's limited relations with the child.

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