The applicants’ young child had been suspected of being the victim of physical abuse. After court proceedings the child was removed. In later proceedings and after being placed with an aunt, she was diagnosed as having brittle bone disease. In the meantime, the mother had suffered ostracism in her community. The court had found her claim in negligence against the hospital doctor ill founded on the basis that the doctor who had failed to diagnose the condition owed the mother no duty of care.
Held: It was clear that the removal of the child was an interference with the claimants’ right to family life. It was however in accordance with domestic law, and that that law had a legitimate aim. The issue was as to its necessity. ‘mistaken judgments or assessments by professionals do not per se render child-care measures incompatible with the requirements of Article 8. The authorities, medical and social, have duties to protect children and cannot be held liable every time genuine and reasonably-held concerns about the safety of children vis-a-vis members of their families are proved, retrospectively, to have been misguided.’ The provisions were necessary, and no breach was found.
Judges:
L Garlicki, President,and Judges Sir Nicolas Bratza, G. Bonello, L. Mijovic, D. Thor Bjorgvinsson, P. Hirvela and L. Bianku Section Registrar L
Citations:
38000/05, [2008] ECHR 950, [2008] ECHR 1889, [2002] ECHR 717, [2010] ECHR 577
Links:
Bailii, Times, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 8
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – MAK and RK v The United Kingdom ECHR 23-Mar-2010
mak_ukECHR10
When RK, a nine year old girl was taken to hospital, with bruises, the paediatrician wrongly suspecting sexual abuse, took blood samples and intimate photographs in the absence of the parents and without their consent.
Held: The doctor had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Local Government, Children
Leading Case
Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.276648