Spotlight
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...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Re R (Children) (Control of Court Documents) [2021] EWCA Civ 162
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), King, Peter Jackson, Elisabeth Laing LJJ, 12 February 2021)Practice and Procedure – Disclosure of court documents – Sexual abuse findings –...
AG v VD [2021] EWFC 9
(Family Court, Cohen J, 04 February 2021) Financial Remedies – Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, Part III – Russian divorceThe wife was awarded just under £6m...
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...
SCTS releases new simplified divorce and dissolution forms for Scotland
The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) has released new simplified divorce and dissolution forms of application. As a result of legislation repealing Council Regulation EC 2201/2003, the...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
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