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

RESIDENCE/HUMAN RIGHTS: Damjanović v Serbia

Sep 29, 2018, 17:36 PM
(European Court of Human Rights; 18 November 2008)
Slug : damnjanoviand-231-v-serbia
Meta Title : RESIDENCE/HUMAN RIGHTS: Damjanović v Serbia
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Nov 26, 2008, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 88645

(European Court of Human Rights; 18 November 2008)

The father had refused to comply with court orders requiring that the children live with the mother. The court fined the father twice and at one point ordered the physical removal of the children from his care. However, this order was not enforced in the face of the children's objections. The father was found guilty of parental child abduction and was sentenced to 6 months suspended for one year. The mother complained that she had been prevented from exercising her parental rights in respect of the children, by the failure of the authorities to enforce court orders, and that her Art 8 and Art 6 rights had thereby been breached.

Noting that the children had made it clear that they wanted to remain with the father, that the state social care centre had played a constructive role in proceedings, that the domestic court had attempted to get the father to cooperate and that ultimately the mother had been unable to resume physical custody of the children in the absence of their explicit consent, the court held that there had been no breaches of the mother's human rights.

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