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
The need for proportionality and the ‘Covid impact’
Simon Wilkinson, Parklane PlowdenThe Covid-19 pandemic has infiltrated every aspect of our lives. Within the courts and tribunals service there has been a plethora of guidance since March 2020 which...
Local authority input into private law proceedings, part II
Mani Singh Basi, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingsLucy Logan Green, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingThis article considers the interplay between private and public law proceedings, focusing on the law relating...
Time for change (II)
Lisa Parkinson, Family mediation trainer, co-founder and a Vice-President of the Family Mediators AssociationThe family law community needs to respond to the urgent call for change from the...
How Can I Wed Thee? – Let Me Change the Ways: the Law Commission’s Consultation Paper on ‘Weddings’ Law (2020)
Professor Chris Barton, A Vice-President of the Family Mediators Association, Academic Door Tenant, Regent Chambers, Stoke-on-TrentThis article considers the Paper's 91 Consultation Questions...
Consultation on the proposed transfer of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of costs to the Legal Aid Agency
The Ministry of Justice has launched a consultation on the proposed transfer from Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service to the Legal Aid Agency of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of...
View all articles
Authors

HUMAN RIGHTS: R v Finland (Application no 34141/96)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:36 PM
Slug : r-v-finland-application-no-34141-96
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jun 7, 2006, 09:56 AM
Article ID : 88713

(European Court of Human Rights; 30 May 2006) The child had been placed in a children's home on the basis of the mother's violent behaviour and both parents' incapacity to raise him. The care order clearly intended placement with a substitute family and a process of separation from the biological parents. At first the father had been permitted to see the child once or twice a month, later this was reduced to once every other month. Three years after the initial placement the child was moved to a substitute family. Over the years, the father had instituted proceedings seeking the return of the child or increased access, without success.

There had been no serious and sustained effort made by social welfare authority to facilitate family reunification. The severe restrictions on the father's right to visit the child reflected the authority's rejection of any attempt to reunify the father and child. The failure to take sufficient steps to facilitate the possible reunification of the family constituted a violation of Art 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950.

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