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...
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

CARE/HUMAN RIGHTS: Roda and Bonfatti v Italy (Application No 10427/02)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:32 PM
Slug : roda-and-bonfatti-v-italy-application-no-10427-02
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Dec 19, 2006, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 88121

(European Court of Human Rights; 21 November 2006)

Following a report from a cousin that she, the child and others had been sexually abused by the child's aunt and uncle, the child was taken into public care. Medical examinations confirmed that there had been sexual abuse. On the basis of evidence that the father had been directly involved in the abuse and that the mother was incapable of protecting child, contact between the family and the child was suspended. The father was initially convicted, with 17 others, of sexually abusing underage children, but was later acquitted on appeal; the convictions of the aunt and uncle had been upheld. Contact between the mother and the child had been suspended for over 3 years; the mother now had contact about six times a year in the presence of social workers. The brother's applications for contact with the child had been dismissed, and his application for custody of the child had been rejected. The child, now living with foster parents, was unwilling to see more of the mother. The mother and brother argued that their Art 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 (European Convention) right to respect for private and family life had been breached.

There had been no violation of Art 8 of the European Convention in relation to the removal of the child from the family home and her placement in care, which had been proportionate and necessary in order to protect the child's health and rights. However, there had been a violation of Art 8 on account of the prolonged suspension of contact and the unsatisfactory arrangements for meetings. Any placement in public care was in principle to be considered a temporary measure, to be suspended as soon as circumstances made that possible, and was to be implemented with a view to reuniting the parent and child concerned.

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