Family Law Hub

Human Rights

Latest updates

  • In brief: There had been a violation of the father’s (“F”) Article 8 rights where the domestic authorities had delayed in enforcing F’s contact order. It had taken two years for F to see his child and the enforcement proceedings are still pending, further exacerbating the lack of contact between F and child in the face of a hostile mother. Judgment, 17/12/2018, free
  • Appeal concerning whether different sex couples are discriminated against by not being allowed to enter into a civil partnership. The Supreme Court unanimously held that they were and declared the CPA incompatible with the ECHR Judgment, 28/06/2018, free
  • The half-brother of a party to family proceedings back in 2002 was applying to have access to the original judgment from Singer J and to various experts' reports. The M was applying to be released from her undertaking not to communicate with the media with a view to displacing the findings made against her by Singer J. The half-brother was allowed access to a limited number of documents and the M's application was dismissed. Judgment, 30/05/2018, free
  • In brief: After divorcing his wife in 2006, Mr Doktorov discovered that one of their two children (born in 2003) was not biologically his. A DNA test in January 2007 confirmed this and, the following month, he brought a civil claim to contest paternity. However, his claim was dismissed as time-barred. Relying on Article 8, Mr Doktorov complained that he had been unable to bring his claim because the one-year time-limit started running from the time he learnt about the child’s birth. However, he had only learned that he was not the child’s father until four years later. The ECtHR agreed that there had been a violation of his Article 8 rights. Judgment, 15/05/2018, free
  • In brief: The mother (“M”) had applied for a residence order for her son in February 2014 after the father (“F”) took the child to Chechnya. Based mainly on a positive report on the father by the local childcare authority, the district court dismissed M’s residence order application and granted one in favour of F, although he had not requested it. M’s subsequent appeals were unsuccessful. It was then revealed that the report prepared by the childcare authority included incorrect and incomplete information. Following F’s death in 2014, the child was returned to M in 2016. The ECtHR found that the domestic courts’ examination of the family’s circumstances had not been thorough enough, which had not allowed the best interests of the child to be established. Overall, there had been a violation of M’s rights under Article 8. Judgment, 15/05/2018, free

Latest know-how

Copyright 

Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.

Disclaimer

The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.

Bookmark this item