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

Nazarenko v Russia (Application No. 39438/13)

Sep 29, 2018, 22:42 PM
The ECHR ruled that the Russian court's termination of the non-biological father's parental rights constituted a breach of Art 8 of the European Convention.
Slug : nazarenko-v-russia-application-no-39438-13
Meta Title : Nazarenko v Russia (Application No. 39438/13)
Meta Keywords : Private law children – Parental rights – Termination – Non-biological father raised child for several years – Whether the domestic court’s termination of the father’s parental rights constituted a breach of Art 8 of the European Convention
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 22, 2015, 06:23 AM
Article ID : 116770
(European Court of Human Rights, 16 July 2015)

 Private law children – Parental rights – Termination – Non-biological father raised child for several years – Whether the domestic court’s termination of the father’s parental rights constituted a breach of Art 8 of the European Convention
 
Please see attached file below for the full judgment.


 The ECHR ruled that the Russian court's termination of the non-biological father's parental rights constituted a breach of Art 8 of the European Convention.

 
After the parents of the 8-year-old child divorced it was arranged for residence to be shared. However, when the father discovered bruises on the child's body he suspected she had been beaten and sexually abused by the mother's new partner and refused to return her to her mother's care.

 Both parents applied for residence orders. The father's allegations were investigated but the court held they were unfounded. Both parents were suitable carers for the child but given the child's age and sex the court found it was preferable for her to live with the mother despite the child's wish to live with the father. The Supreme Court upheld that decision but the father refused to hand the child over. The mother abducted the child and had thereafter refused to permit the father to see her.

 When a DNA test disclosed that the child was not the father's biological child his paternity was terminated. His name was removed from her birth certificate and her name was changed. Court proceedings were ceased and it was found that the father had no standing to bring civil actions concerning parental authority over the child. The Supreme Court refused to hear the father's appeal. He applied to the European Court of Human Rights claiming a breach of his Art 8 rights.

 As a result of the operation of domestic law the father was entirely and automatically excluded from the child's life after the termination of his paternity. A person who had brought up a child for some time as his own should not be completely excluded that the child's life after it had been revealed that he was not the biological father unless there were reasons relating to the child's best interests to do so. There was no suggestion in this case that contact would be detrimental to the child's welfare. The authorities had failed in their obligation to permit the maintenance of family ties between the father and child. There had, accordingly, been a breach of Art 8 of the European Convention.
  CASE OF NAZARENKO v. RUSSIA
 (Application no. 39438/13)

 STRASBOURG

 16 July 2015

 
 
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

 In the case of Nazarenko v. Russia,

 The European Court of Human Rights (First Section),sitting as a Chamber composed of:

 Isabelle Berro, President,
 Elisabeth Steiner,
 Khanlar Hajiyev,
 Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
 Julia Laffranque,
 Ksenija Turković,
 Dmitry Dedov, judges,
 and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,

 Having deliberated in private on 23 June 2015,
 
 
 
Nazarenko v Russia (Application No. 39438/13) 

 Delivers the following JUDGMENT, which was adopted on that date:
Categories :
  • Judgments
  • Private Law Children
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from