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

CORONER/ADMINISTRATION: Scotching v Birch

Sep 29, 2018, 17:09 PM
Slug : scotching-v-birch
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Mar 18, 2008, 11:26 AM
Article ID : 87107

(Chancery Division; Patten J; 18 March 2008)

After the birth of the child, the couple's relationship broke down. The father eventually issued contact proceedings. The mother failed to attend a family court hearing, and shortly afterwards was found unconscious, having killed the child and attempted to kill herself. Because the parents, who had an equal interest in the child's estate, could not agree as to the burial arrangements for the child, the coroner refused to release the child's body without a court order. The father sought the grant of letters of administration, arguing that the mother was prohibited from applying for a grant of letters of administration on public policy grounds, in that she was not entitled to benefit from the estate of a person she had unlawfully killed. The mother argued that her right to respect for family life, under European Convention on Human Rights, Art 8, meant that she was entitled to apply for a grant of administration.

The mother's rights under Art 8 did not override the well-established and validated rule that a person should not benefit from her crimes. The mother could not apply for a grant of letters of administration; the letters of administration would be granted to the father, who was also entitled to a declaration that he was entitled to the child's body.

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