CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 26 mars 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sD086E7B5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:70.9pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-70.9pt } .sB54F21D0 { width:1.54pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sBF0BF550 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:70.9pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCFE25540 { width:12.2pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s64582795 { width:70.9pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     165   26.3.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   HEARING IN THE CASE OF P., C. AND S. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM   Tuesday 26 March 2002 at 2.30 p.m.   The applicants   P., born in 1958, is a United States national. C., the husband of P., was born in 1962, and is a British national. S., their daughter, was born in 1998 and is a British and American citizen.   They all live in the United Kingdom.   Summary of the facts   In 1985 P. gave birth to B. In 1992 P. and her first husband, B.’s father, separated. In April 1994, the Californian authorities took B. into protective custody, alleging that P. was harming B. by administering laxatives to him inappropriately. On 23 August 1994, the Californian court ordered that B. live with his father. P. was convicted of a misdemeanour under the Californian Penal Code and, on 17 November 1995, was sentenced to three years’ probation and ordered to spend three months in custody, which was suspended. On 5 May 1996, the Californian family court approved supervised contact between P. and her son B., once a month for the following three years.   During 1996, P. met C., a qualified social worker with a doctorate concerning women wrongly accused of being Münchhausen’s Syndrome by Proxy abusers [1] . P. and C. married in September 1997 in the United Kingdom.   On 7 May 1998, the day their daughter S. was born, an emergency child protection order was issued. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council then applied for a care order under the Children Act 1989. In the meantime, P. and C., who were allowed supervised contact with S., developed an excellent relationship with her, according to the supervising officials.   On 8 March 1999, following a hearing, the High Court issued a care order, on the ground that, although P. and C.’s treatment of S. during contact sessions had been exemplary, P. had a personality disorder and C. would not accept that P. was responsible for harming B. S.’s moral or physical health would therefore be endangered if left with her parents. On 15 March 1999, the same High Court judge heard the application to free S. for adoption. P. and C. attended the hearing but did not have legal representation. The judge issued an order freeing S. for adoption. Leave to appeal was refused and S. was adopted on 27 March 2000. The adoption order made no provision for future direct contact between S. and her parents. The last contact visit between them was on 21 July 1999.   Complaints   The applicants complain under Article 8 about the practice of instituting adoption proceedings together with care proceedings for babies and maintain that freeing for adoption orders are draconian. They also complain that the adoption order made no provision for resuming any form of direct contact in future, which constituted an interference with S.’s right to respect for her family life with her parents, and theirs with her. They further complain, under Article 6 § 1, that they did not have access to court or a fair hearing in respect of the freeing for adoption proceedings, where neither were legally represented and where the judge refused an adjournment to permit an application for legal aid. Complaint is also made in respect of the care proceedings, where P. was not legally represented after 5 February 1999. Under Article 12, they complain that the proceedings put immense strain on their marriage and prevented them from founding a family.   Procedure   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 23 December 1999. It was declared admissible on 11 December 2001 when it was also decided to hold a hearing.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by a Chamber composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , Nicolas Bratza (British), András Baka (Hungarian), Gaukur Jörundsson (Icelandic), Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), judges , Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Wilhelmina Thomassen (Dutch), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), substitute judges , and also Lawrence Early , Deputy Section Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government:   Hew Llewellyn , Agent , Andrew MacFarlane QC, Tim Eicke , Counsel , Lisa Harrison , Julia Ridgway , Jenny Gray , Gaby Perrot , Kay Birch , Carole McCrystal , Advisers ;   Applicants:   Barbara Hewson , Dermot Casey , Counsel , Richard Stein , Solicitor ,   Nuala Mole , Claire Stockford , Kathy Weed , Advisers .   P. and C. will also attend the hearing.   ***   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date.   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] A form of psychiatric illness, mainly found in women, who seek attention for themselves by inducing illness in their children or inventing accounts of illness in their children, and by repeatedly presenting their children to the medical authorities for investigation and treatment .