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
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
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