Latest articles
UK Immigration Rough Sleeper Rule
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsThe UK government has recently introduced a controversial new set of rules that aim to make rough sleeping grounds for refusal or cancellation of a migrant’s...
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...
View all articles

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 :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from