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
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
View all articles
Authors

ADOPTION: Emonet v Switzerland

Sep 29, 2018, 17:16 PM
Slug : emonet-v-switzerland
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Dec 13, 2007, 10:15 AM
Article ID : 87793

(European Court of Human Rights; 13 December 2007)

The mother and child were living with the mother's long-term cohabitant in Switzerland. The father had died; the child, who was severely disabled regarded the mother's cohabitant as her father. The mother, her cohabitant and the child agreed that the cohabitant should adopt the child. Only after the adoption order had been made did the family discover that the order had the effect of terminating the mother's parental tie, and that the child was required to take her adoptive father's name. The mother and child objected, but the Swiss courts refused to restore the mother's parental tie, as previously existing parental ties had to be severed on adoption unless the natural parent was the spouse of the adoptive parent. The family also applied unsuccessfully to have the adoption order set aside.

There had been a breach of the applicants' human rights. Respect for family life required that both biological and social realities be taken into account so as to avoid such unforeseen legal results. The Swiss authorities' failure to take these realities into account had flown in the face of the wishes of the individuals concerned, without actually benefiting anyone. It was not for the national authorities to take the place of those concerned in reaching a decision as to the form of communal life they wished to adopt. The applicants could not be reproached for having been unaware of the extent of the consequences of their request for adoption.

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