Information Note on the Court’s case-law 54

June 2003

R.F. v. Italy (dec.) - 42933/98

Decision 26.6.2003 [Section I]

Article 8

Article 8-1

Respect for family life

Impossibility of reuniting mother and child notwithstanding the intervention of the courts and the social services: inadmissible

The applicant refused to recognise her daughter, V., when she was born in 1989, for reasons connected with her career, and the children’s court of its own motion instituted proceedings in order to ascertain whether the child was abandoned, which might have led to its eventual adoption. The child was recognised by the natural father and the court discontinued the proceedings. Relations between the applicant and the child’s father deteriorated and V. went to live with her father in the paternal grandparents’ home. In May 1993, the applicant brought proceedings in order to be able to recognise V. and to obtain custody of her. The applicant succeeded on appeal, by a judgment of 1996. The applicant then sought leave to meet her daughter with a view to eventually securing custody of her. The proceedings initiated following that application were stayed between September 1997 and March 1998 because V.’s father had in the meantime appealed on a point of law against the judgment of May 1996. In July 1998, the court provisionally ordered the social services to arrange meetings between the mother and V. and to report on those meetings. The social workers reported the obstructive conduct of V.’s grandparents. In May 2000, by a provisional interim decision, the court invited the social services to arrange the immediate resumption of the meetings between the applicant and her daughter and order ed V.’s father and grandparents to comply with its decision. In September 2000, the social services stated that the applicant had not met her daughter or made any attempt to cooperate in the organisation of the meetings scheduled for that purpose. The judg e heard V., who said that she was living happily with her father and stated that her mother had not sought to contact her. Fresh attempts to arrange meetings failed, as the applicant twice refused, for family reasons, to meet her child. The court discontin ued the matter in April 2001. It considered that it was clear from the applicant’s conduct that she had decided to give priority to her career. The court formally noted that the father retained custody of the child and that it was impossible to establish a ny relationship between the applicant and her daughter. The applicant did not challenge the decision.

Inadmissible under Article 8: The interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her family life had a legal basis and was sufficiently foreseeabl e and accessible. It pursued a legitimate aim, namely the protection of the rights and freedoms of others: the decisions taken by the national authorities show that the interest of the child and the protection of her mental development were their objective s. As regards the need for the interference in a democratic society, the decisions of the national judicial authorities were inspired, without exception, by the need to protect the greater interest of the infant. Although the meetings between the child and the applicant suffered as a result of the conduct of V.’s paternal grandparents, beyond a certain point the applicant no longer cooperated with the social services in arranging the meetings with her daughter, no longer sought to contact her and even refus ed to attend the meetings which had been scheduled. As regards the social services, apart from the fact that one expert report was late in being lodged, they showed diligence. The case-file does not support the conclusion that any obstacles were placed by the social services which made contacts between the applicant and V. difficult: manifestly unfounded.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes