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

CARE PROCEEDINGS:MD v Malta (Application No 64792/10)

Sep 29, 2018, 18:20 PM
Slug : mvvmalta17072012
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 26, 2012, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 99597

(European Court of Human Rights, 17 July 2012) 

The mother and two children claimed a breach of their rights under Arts 6, 8 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950, in that they were denied access to the courts in order to challenge a care order following a change of circumstances.

Criminal proceedings against the mother and father found them both guilty of cruelty and excessive correction and they were given custodial sentences. A care order was made but the mother then sought constitutional redress in respect of the fact that once a care order was issued there was no availability for a re-examination by an independent tribunal.

The Maltese Court found a violation of Arts 6 and 13 but no violation of Art 8 but refused to revoke the care order as the mother's parental rights had been terminated when the care order was made and therefore she had no standing to seek revocation.

The ECHR found there had been a breach of Arts 6 and 8 of the European Convention.

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