The applicants challenged the way in which their newborn children had been removed by the state after birth. S had not had the opportunity of legal representation, after her lawyers had withdrawn. The removal of S’s child was challenged as disproportionate and a breach of the right to family life.
Held: Given the importance of the decision, the denial of legal representation infringed the family’s legal rights. Representation was necessary, and the refusal to allow an adjournment denied a fair trial. The procedure under which a decision was made before the birth of a child to remove it at birth, leading to a probable adoption was draconian and not justified given the alternative possibilities, and was an interference with the right to family life.
Judges:
Costa, Baka, Bratza, Jorundsson, Loucaides, Birsan and Ugrekhelidze, Early
Citations:
Times 16-Aug-2002, 56547/00, [2002] ECHR 599, (2002) 35 EHRR 1075, [2002] ECHR 604
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 6.1 8
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – JD v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust and others HL 21-Apr-2005
Parents of children had falsely and negligently been accused of abusing their children. The children sought damages for negligence against the doctors or social workers who had made the statements supporting the actions taken. The House was asked if . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Children, Family
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174384
