CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 mars 2012

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 150 March 2012 Y.C. v. the United Kingdom - 4547/10 Judgment 13.3.2012 [Section IV] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Placement of child from abusive background with prospective adoptive parent: no violation   Facts – The applicant and her partner of several years had a son in 2001. In 2003 the family came to the attention of social services as a result of an “alcohol fuelled” incident between the parents. There were subsequent incidents of domestic violence and alcohol abuse which escalated from the end of 2007 with the police being called to the family home on numerous occasions. In June 2008 the local authority obtained an emergency protection order after the boy was injured during a further violent altercation between the parents. That order was followed up by an interim care order and the boy was placed in foster care. A guardian was appointed to protect his interests. The interim care order was repeatedly extended pending detailed reports by social services, the boy’s guardian and a psychologist. In April 2009 the family proceedings court decided not to make a full care order and a placement order after finding that the applicant, who claimed that she had separated from the father, should be given one last opportunity to have her parenting ability assessed in the light of that separation. It made a further interim care order instead. That order was overturned by the County Court on an appeal by the local authority and the child’s guardian after the judge found that “the only effect of postponing the decision to make a care order [would be] to delay, and therefore to jeopardise, the process of finding an alternative long term placement”. The applicant was refused leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal and her son was placed with a prospective adoptive parent in January 2010. Law – Article 8: There was no doubt that the decision to refuse a further assessment and to make a care and placement order constituted a serious interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her family life. The interference was “in accordance with the law” and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of the child. As to whether the interference was necessary in a democratic society, the County Court judge had noted when considering the child’s best interests that any further assessment would entail a degree of disruption to the child’s foster placement and a risk of emotional harm should the assessment break down. He considered that an assessment of the applicant would never be able to provide sufficient evidence to justify the refusal of a care order, given her shortcomings and the real risk that she would resume her relationship with the father, and would serve only to delay and jeopardise the prospect of finding a long-term placement. In the light of the history of the case and the reports, the judge’s view that a resumption of the applicant’s relationship with the father was likely and entailed a risk to the child’s well-being did not appear unreasonable. Accordingly, while it was in a child’s best interests that his or her family ties be maintained where possible, it was clear that in the instant case this consideration had been outweighed by the need to ensure the child’s development in a safe and secure environment. Attempts had been made to rebuild the family through the provision of support for alcohol abuse and opportunities for parenting assistance. The applicant did not appear to have accessed domestic-violence support despite being given the relevant details. The reports prepared by the social worker, the guardian and the psychologist had highlighted the difficulties that had been encountered as a result of the parents’ failure to engage with the authorities. In reaching his decision, the County Court judge had directed his mind, as required by Article   8, to the child’s best interests, had had regard to various relevant factors and made detailed reference to the reports and oral evidence of the social worker, the guardian and the psychologist, all of whom had identified the issues at stake. The applicant had been afforded an opportunity to seek any clarification she might require as to the reasons for the judge’s decision and to seek a further review by the Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the decision to make a placement order had not exceeded the State’s margin of appreciation and the reasons for the decision had been relevant and sufficient. The applicant had been given every opportunity to present her case and had been fully involved in the decision-making process. Conclusion : no violation (six votes to one).   © 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