Search
document

Document text Analytics

CROSSLEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 14247/88 • ECHR ID: 001-1117

Document date: December 4, 1989

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

CROSSLEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 14247/88 • ECHR ID: 001-1117

Document date: December 4, 1989

Cited paragraphs only

Application No. 14247/88

by Ernest James CROSSLEY

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

4 December 1989, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

J.A. FROWEIN

S. TRECHSEL

G. SPERDUTI

E. BUSUTTIL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

G. BATLINER

Sir Basil HALL

MM. F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

Mr. L. LOUCAIDES

Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 10 June 1988

by Ernest James CROSSLEY against the United Kingdom and registered on

26 September 1988 under file No. 14247/88;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the

Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a British citizen born in 1924 and resident

in Ipswich. The facts as submitted by the applicant may be summarised

as follows.

The applicant's daughter S was born on 5 March 1970. On

28 June 1979, the Hereford and Worcester County Council (the

"Council") successfully applied for a care order in respect of S, who

is mentally-handicapped, on the ground that the applicant was not

allowing her to receive the treatment and educational assessment

considered necessary. One major point of disagreement between the

applicant and the Council was the applicant's desire for S to receive

mainstream schooling and the Council's belief that S required special

schooling.

Following the care order, S was placed as a week-day boarder

in a residential special school. On 10 January 1983, S was admitted

as a full time boarder to Ryes school, a special residential school.

At or about this time the applicant was separated from his wife, who

retained custody of the other two children of the family.

The applicant was initially allowed weekly access to S at Ryes

school. Following concern at the effect of these visits, the Social

Services of Essex County Council (the "local authority") who had taken

over responsibility for supervision of the care order, reduced access

to one per month in April 1985, pending advice from a consultant child

psychiatrist. The applicant was invited to see the consultant with S

for a psychiatric assessment to be made on the subject of continued

access but the applicant declined the invitation. No further access

visit took place until May 1986 when the applicant wrote to the school

informing them of his intention to visit the next Sunday. When the

applicant arrived however, he was told S was not available.

By letter dated 10 August 1987 to the local authority, the

applicant's solicitors requested access to S for the applicant. On 20

November 1987, the applicant was served with a Notice of Termination

of Access Order and the applicant applied to the Court pursuant to

Section 12 B of the Child Care Act 1985 to review this decision. A

guardian ad litem was appointed to represent S. In his report dated

12 February 1988, with supplement dated 23 February 1988, the guardian

reported that the applicant had not seen S for 2 1/2 years and during

the preceding 2 1/2 years there had been a deterioration in

communication between the applicant and the school and an increasing

concern by the school with the applicant's inappropriate behaviour

with S and S's marked negative reaction to his visits. He concluded

that it was not in S's interests to see her father.

On 26 February 1988, the magistrate's court refused the

applicant access to S.

The care order in force in relation to S expired on 5 March

1988 when she reached 18 years of age. By letter dated 25 May 1988

the applicant approached the local authority concerning access. By

letter dated 15 June 1988, the local authority agreed that S was no

longer in their care and the decision refusing access was no longer in

force. The local authority stated however that the Social Services

Department considered that it was not in S's interests for the

applicant to have access and that they were not prepared to make any

arrangements for access or to allow the applicant on their premises

for the purpose of seeing S.

It appears that S has remained at the Ryes school since the

expiry of the care order and that there are plans to introduce her

gradually to a hostel for mentally handicapped young adults.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains of interference with his family life

in that his daughter was institutionalised against his judgment and

that she was placed in care, access restricted and finally terminated.

He also complains of being prevented from seeing her since her 18th

birthday when the care order expired. He further complains of being

denied a fair hearing in respect of the proceedings before the

magistrate's court on 26 February 1988. The applicant invokes

Articles 6, 8 and 11 of the Convention.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 10 June 1988 and registered

on 26 September 1988.

The Commission decided on 13 April 1989 to bring the

application to the notice of the respondent Government and invite them

to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the

applicant's complaints.

The Government submitted observations on 11 August 1989. By

letter dated 22 September 1989, the applicant stated that he withdrew

his application since he intended to apply for judicial review in

respect of the local authority's decision to refuse him access to his

daughter. He also expressed the intention of renewing his application

if necessary following the exhaustion of domestic remedies.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The Commission notes that the applicant intends to institute

domestic proceedings in respect of his complaints and wishes meanwhile

to withdraw his application. The Commission finds no reasons of a

general character affecting the observance of the Convention which

necessitate a further examination of the case.

For these reasons, the Commission

DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF THE LIST OF CASES.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant