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
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
View all articles
Authors

ADOPTION/HUMAN RIGHTS: Eski v Austria (Application no 21949/03)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:08 PM
Slug : eski-v-austria-application-no-21949-03
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jan 25, 2007, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 86969

(European Court of Human Rights; 25 January 2007)

The mother and father had separated when the child was 2 years old. The court subsequently refused to allow the father to have contact with the child because the father had assaulted and abused the mother during such contact. Although the father stopped making any maintenance payments, he continued to seek contact with the child. When the child was 8 years old, the mother's husband sought to adopt the child. The court rejected the father's objections to the adoption. The father argued that this decision breached his right to respect for family life under Art 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950.

By a majority, there had been no breach of Art 8; the adoption had been within the State's margin of appreciation. A dissenting opinion was given by two of the judges who considered that the reasons given for dispensing with the father's consent had been insufficient.

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