Search
document

Document text Analytics

K. and A. v. the UNTED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 13485/88 • ECHR ID: 001-336

Document date: July 4, 1988

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

K. and A. v. the UNTED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 13485/88 • ECHR ID: 001-336

Document date: July 4, 1988

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 13485/88

by K. and A.

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

4 July 1988, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

S. TRECHSEL

E. BUSUTTIL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

J.C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

G. BATLINER

J. CAMPINOS

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

MM. F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

Mr. J. RAYMOND, Deputy Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 20 July 1987 by

K. and A. against the United Kingdom and registered on 4 January 1988 under

file No. 13485/88;

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 first applicant is a British citizen born in 1952 and is

resident in B., where she lives with her husband, the second applicant,

who was born in 1945 and is also a British citizen.

The first applicant gave birth to a daughter, L., out of

wedlock, on 10 April 1982. The natural father did not appear

interested in the child and the first applicant lived alone with L.

on supplementary benefit, until in October 1983 when she married the

second applicant. The second applicant, assuming the responsibility

of a father for L., approached L.'s natural father to inform him that

he wished to adopt her. The natural father apparently was against the

idea and decided to apply for access to L. In 1984 he obtained from

Barnet Magistrates Court an order for access to L., which allowed him

to take L. to his house on Sundays from 10am - 6pm and to have L. stay

with him one weekend in four. The applicants appealed, and in the

High Court, the access order was upheld, although the staying access

was removed.

The first applicant meanwhile did not comply with the access

order and L.'s natural father threatened to seek an order for her

committal to prison.

The applicants continued with their plans to adopt L. The

application for adoption was heard in B. County Court in October

1986 and the judge dismissed the application. He apparently found the

applicants to be suitable adopters and commented that they could apply

again if the natural father lost interest. The applicants appealed

unsuccessfully to the Court of Appeal on 4 February 1987.

The applicants then applied to the magistrates court to have

the access order revoked or varied. They suggested to the probation

officer appointed to the case that access visits take place in their

home rather than elsewhere. The natural father however made L. a ward

of court on 21 May 1987. An affidavit sworn by the natural father on

5 August 1987 stated "this application was made as I did not believe

that was acting in the best interests of my

daughter in refusing to allow the access to her despite my requests

and the instructions of the courts".

The applicants applied to the High Court to terminate the

wardship, but the order was confirmed on 15 July 1987 with the court

awarding care and control to the applicants. The High Court also

considered the question of access and ordered reasonable access to the

natural father, apparently to take place in future at the applicants'

home. The judge refused to terminate the wardship and when the

applicants informed the judge of their intention to re-apply for

adoption, they were informed that they would be unlikely to be

successful and that L. would remain in the custody of the court until

the age of 18.

By summons dated 9 October 1987, the applicants applied again

for L. to be dewarded but the summons was dismissed by order of the

High Court dated 5 January 1988.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain that their parental rights have been

unjustifiably violated by the wardship proceedings. They complain

that custody and other parental rights are now vested in the court and

they cannot move home, change school, leave the country or arrange

medical treatment without first applying to the court. They also

complain that the dismissal of the adoption application and the

institution and continuation of the wardship deprive L. of the

security of a family.

The applicants invoke Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention.

THE LAW

The applicants complain that their parental rights are

violated by the existence of the wardship of L. and by the dismissal

of the adoption application. They invoke Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention

which provides:

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private

and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority

with the exercise of this right except such as is in

accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic

society in the interests of national security, public safety

or the economic well-being of the country, for the

prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of

health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and

freedoms of others.

The Commission recalls that L. was made a ward of court

on 21 May 1987 by her natural father and that the applicants'

applications to deward L. have been dismissed, with the result that

L. continues to be a ward of court and the High Court is vested with

responsibility for all aspects of her welfare. The applicants

complain that, as a consequence, they are unable to make any important

decisions concerning L. without first applying to the court.

The Commission notes however that L. remains in the

applicant's care and control and that the purpose of the wardship

proceedings instituted by L.'s natural father was to secure access

visits to his daughter which had been obstructed by the first

applicant. The applicants have been able to participate as parties in

the proceedings before the High Court and to have their submissions as

to the wardship considered by the court. In the light of these

circumstances, the Commission finds that the existence of the

wardship, although constituting an interference with the applicants'

right to respect for family life protected by Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1) of

the Convention, is "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic

society" for the purpose of protecting the rights of others, namely, the

natural father and, consequently, justified under the terms of Article 8

para. 2 (Art. 8-2).

The Commission considers that the fact that the applicants'

application for adoption was dismissed does not raise any separate

issue under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention.

It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded

within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Deputy Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(J. RAYMOND) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant