Latest articles
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...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles
Authors

HUMAN RIGHTS/PATERNITY: Rozanski v Poland (Application no 55339/00)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:26 PM
Slug : rozanski-v-poland-application-no-55339-00
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 18, 2006, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 86361

(European Court of Human Rights; 18 May 2006)

The child was born while the mother was cohabiting with the applicant. For a period the child was left in the sole care of the applicant, but after the child became ill and was taken into hospital the mother removed the child and went into hiding. The applicant had had no further contact with the child. The mother's new partner recognised paternity of the child and was acknowledged by the authorities as the legal father. The applicant could not assert paternity without the co-operation of the authorities in instituting paternity proceedings and this had been refused him.

There had been a violation of Art 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950. There were no directly accessible procedures by which the applicant could attempt to establish his legal paternity, as the launching of paternity procedures was completely at the discretion of authorities. The absence of any guidance as to the authorities' exercise of their discretionary powers concerning paternity was also a concern. No steps had been taken by the authorities to investigate the facts of case and the mere fact that the child had been legally recognised by another man had been sufficient to justify refusing the applicant's requests to have his biological paternity recognised.

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