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: Jucius and Juciuvienė v Lithuania (No 14414/03)

Sep 29, 2018, 16:12 PM
(European Court of Human Rights; 25 November 2008)
Slug : jucius-and-juciuvienand-232-v-lithuania-no-14414-03
Meta Title : RESIDENCE: Jucius and Juciuvienė v Lithuania (No 14414/03)
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Nov 25, 2008, 09:50 AM
Article ID : 84851

(European Court of Human Rights; 25 November 2008)

When the children's parents died, the maternal uncle and his wife took temporary custody of the children, then aged 4 and 6 months. Some time later the paternal grandparents applied to adopt the children; in response the uncle and wife also applied to adopt the children. Eventually, over 30 months later, notwithstanding the express wish of the elder child, then 7 years old, to remain with the uncle and aunt, whom she regarded as her parents, the courts awarded permanent custody of the children to the grandparents, on the basis that the grandparents had better financial and living conditions. After all appeal routes had been exhausted, the younger child went to live with the grandparents, but the elder child refused to leave the uncle and aunt's home, even when the bailiff attempted to enforce the custody decision. Over a year later the court granted permanent custody of the elder child to the uncle and aunt, and permanent custody of the younger child to the grandparents. The uncle and aunt complained that the decision-making process had breached their human rights.

The Lithuanian court had had to determine a factual question of crucial importance, a question that involved the assessment of character as well as the motives and wishes of the children. When evaluations of this kind played such a significant role, and the outcome could be of major detriment to the applicants, it was essential that the appellate court should hold a hearing and afford applicants the right to be heard and fully participate in the hearing, rather than relying on a written procedure. There had been a violation of Art 8.

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