A (A Child) v Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust  EWHC 454 (QB)-
Identity of child subject of negligence proceedings covered by anonymity order
In considering whether to grant a sole adoption order, Article 8 required the courts to focus on the right of the child to family life.
B & Y
The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980, even when interpreted in accordance with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950, attached paramount importance to the rights of the abducted child over and above those of the mother and her other child.
Billebro v Sweden
The national courts had ensured sufficient participation by the applicant in the care arrangements concerning her daughter so as not to deny the applicant her procedural rights under Article 8.
Where a mother was unlawfully present in the United Kingdom the decision of a local authority to cease providing her and her two children with accommodation had not been unlawful, perverse or irrational, nor had it been in breach of Article 8.
Failure to inform the applicant of certain evidence of her alleged neglect of her children in court proceedings leading to a care order breached the procedural aspect of her right to a family life under Article 8.
Ciliz v Netherlands
Deportation of a parent contesting a care decision concerning his children did not interfere with his right to family life under Article 8, but the failure to involve him in these proceedings did
The Chilren Act's prohibition on publishing material likely to identify any child involved in proceedings was limited to the duration of the proceedings, since it constituted a restriction on the media's right to freedom of expression under Article 10.
D (A child)
Proposals for the improvement of the court system in dealing with parental contact and residence disputes, in order to reduce delays and avoid unsatisfactory outcomes.
D.P. and J.C. v UK
Strike out of abuse claims against local authority did not breach Article 6 but Article 13 was breached
De Haase v Germany
Emergency measures taken by the authorities to remove the applicants' children into care breached their rights under Articles 8 and 6. Pecuniary damages awarded for loss of child benefit.
Dennis v UK
Complaint that interference with cadavers breached relatives' Article 8 rights rejected as time-barred
Neither the statutory scheme under the Child Support Act 1991 and the CSA’s administration were incompatible with the rights to family life and possessions under Articles 8 and 1, Protocol 1.
E (Children) FC  UKSC 27
Abduction and the child's "best interests"
E and Others v UK
Failure by the local authorities to protect the applicants from abuse at the hands of their stepfather breached Articles 3, 8 and 13
E.B. v France
(European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber) Application No.: 00043546/02
The Strasbourg Court has held, by a narrow majority, that there had been a breach of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 where a homosexual woman applying under domestic law to adopt a foreign child as a single person had been refused authorisation by state authorities.
Elsholz v Germany
The failure of the authorities to involve the applicant father in the decisions concerning access to his illegitimate child denied his procedural rights under Article 8.
The failure of the state to allow adoption of children by same-sex couples was within their margin of appreciation and breached neither Articles 8 or 14.
In the light of the lack of uniformity across Europe of legislation regulating the naming of children, there was no violation of parent's rights by Swiss law that restricted choice of names.
Glaser v UK
States' positive obligations to respect family life do not extend to an obligation on courts to enforce measures in the fact of obstructive behaviour by the parents
Emergency treatment of a disabled child without the consent of his family did not breach Articles 2 or 14.
H and L v A City Council  EWCA Civ 403
CA finds that disclosures made by a local authority to other organisations of a person’s conviction for a sex offence against a child were unlawful
Haas v Netherlands
An individual may rely on their personality rights under Article 8 to get paternity established in order to bolster any succession claim against a deceased father who had denied family ties in the past
Parties seeking restrictions on publication relating to fostering arrangements bore the onus of proving that such restriction was necessary and proportionate under Article 10
Ignaccolo-Zenide v Romania
Failure by the state to enforce measures to reunite the applicant with her children breached Article 8, despite the fact that the person preventing this reconciliation was a private party, the father.
J (A Child)
There would be no breach of a child’s rights under Articles 6, 8 or 14 to make an order under the Children Act 1989 for the return of a child to Saudi Arabia as the country of his habitual residence in the care of his mother
James v UK
Complaint about the failure of a local authority to inform adoptive parents about a child's behavioural difficulties rejected as out of time.
JD and RK
No duty of care was owed by health professionals in the course of investigating child abuse to the parents suspected of responsibility for the abuse, providing they carried out that investigation in good faith.
JR1, Re Judicial Review  NIQB 5
The continued narrow definition of “standing” under the Human Rights Act 1998.
K and T v Finland
In two related judgments, the Strasbourg Court considered child care proceedings and decided that there had been a violation of the right to a fair trial under Article 6(1) in one case, and a violation of Article 8 in the other, for which non-pecuniary damages were available.
A mother separated from the father with care of children had no right in domestic law, under the Child Support Act 1991, to enforce her former husband's liability to pay maintenance. The Child Support Act did not infringe her right of access to a court under Article 6 because there was no subsisting civil right to sue.
Koskinen v Sweden
Petition concerning the exclusion of grandparents from care proceedings under Swedish law rejected for non-exhaustion of local remedies.
L v UK
A disclosure order relating to a report prepared for care proceedings under the Children Act did not breach the applicant's rights under Articles 6 and 8.
The principle that doctors or social workers, who erroneously concluded that a child was at risk of abuse its parents should not be liable in negligence, was not rendered invalid by the fact that a parent might have a claim under Article 8 of the Convention after the coming into force of the Human Rights Act 1998
The decision of the House of Lords in JD v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust & Ors  2 AC 373 that investigating professionals did not owe a duty of care to parents suspected of child abuse had not been changed by the introduction of Article 8 ECHR into domestic law. Further, Article 8 cannot be harmonised with the common law principle of ‘duty of care’ as it is a wholly different legal construct.
Leeds NHS Trust
The biological father (rather than the husband of the mother) was the legal father of twins, conceived during fertility treatment, where, by mistake, the mother had been impregnated with sperm from an unintended donor.
M.G. v UK
Complaint under Article 8 about lack of access to personal records in the Gaskin v UK context admitted for full consideration of the merits.
Mikulic v Croatia
The failure by state authorities to compel defendants in paternity suits to undergo DNA tests was a disproportionate denial of the applicants personality rights under Article 8, in the absence of any other measures available to establish paternity.
Odievre v France
An adoptive child was entitled under the right to respect for privacy guaranteed by Article 8 to discover the identity of her biological mother
P, C, S v UK
The removal of a baby from its mother at birth by means of an emergency protection order breached both mother and child's rights under Article 8
The education authority no longer enjoyed public policy immunity from negligence actions since the ruling in Osman v Uk and therefore it had not been correct to strike out such actions before trial
Deduction of an amount from the claimant's job-seekers' allowance under the Child Support Regulations was not incompatible with his right to family life under Article 8.
Principal Reporter (Respondent) v K (Appellant) and others (Scotland)  UKSC 56
The Supreme Court has ruled that Scottish law, which previously did not give unmarried fathers the right to take part in a hearing relating to a child with whom they have established family ties, is incompatible with human rights law.
R v S
A local authority's duty under Article 8 and child protection legislation was triggered by the presence of reasonable grounds to suspect significant harm and not any higher threshold even if the person being investigated had been acquitted in the criminal courts.
R v Wigan BC ex parte DK
Secure accomodation orders under the 1989 Children Act did constitute a deprivation of liberty under Article 5 but came within the Article 5(1)(d) exception.
R. and H. v. United Kingdom (no. 35348/06)
Freeing orders for adoption do not breach right to family life
Re C (Immunisation)
Immunisation against childhood diseases was in the best interests of the children in question despite the mothers' objections.
Re L (A Minor)
Police owe a duty of care when interviewing witnesses, particularly children, to protect them from any future harm that might ensue from the manner of the investigation.
Re L (Minors)
Where two legal advisers on either side of a case were cohabiting, that fact could give rise to an apprehension of bias, contrary to common law and the requirement of an independent and impartial tribunal under Article 6.
A declaration of breach of Article 8 was sufficient satisfaction where a mother had been insufficiently involved in the decision by the local authority to abandon a care plan for her rehabilitation with her child. The mother was not entitled to damages in addition to the declaration
The judge has unfettered discretion to join any person as respondent in adoption proceedings and in this case had acted correctly in joining the father despite the history of violence, avoiding the risk that the father would complain of denial of his Convention rights at a later date.
The claimant had the right to respect for his private life, in the sense of having knowledge of his identity including true paternity. He therefore was entitled to insist on an order for DNA tests to establish his paternity in order that he might seek a parental responsibility order.
Singh v UK
Challenge to the exclusion of India from the list of designated countries for recognition of inter-country adoptions admitted for further consideration.
Where the threshold criteria under Section 31 of the Children Act were met, the parent's right to family life under Article 8 was circumscribed and subject to the rights and freedoms of the children.
Sommerfeld v Germany
Refusal of access to a father because of his 13 year old child's evidence in court did not breach his Article 8 rights but the differing burden of proof as between divorced and unmarried fathers breached Article 14.
Sylvester v Austria
Failure of national courts to enforce a return order after their delay which caused the child to bond with her mother breached the father's right to family life under Article 8.
T.P. and K.M. v UK
The applicants had been given ample opportunity to air their grievances in the hearing at which their claims in negligence against the local authorities had been struck out. No breach of Article 6.
Venables and Thompson
Article 2 entitled the convicted murderers of James Bulger to continuing injunctions restricting publication of details of their identity and whereabouts.
Venema v Netherlands
A fostering order issued without involving the parents in the hearing interfered with their procedural rights under the right to respect for family life under Article 8
Absolute privilege in defamation cases did not extend to statements made by a social worker in a child protection case conference; the court had to balance the Article 8 rights of the child against the parents' rights to reputation under Article 8.
In family proceedings, as in other forms of legal procedure, publicity should be the default position. The culture of privacy which has developed in the family courts should give way to a proper balancing act between freedom of information and the need for confidentiality. In such a balancing exercise there should be no presumption that the welfare of the child is paramount.
X (A Child)
In children cases where the paramountcy principle does not apply, freedom of the press will almost always prevail over Article 8
Z v UK
Failure to place neglected children on the Child Protection Register did amount to treatment contrary to Article 3, but the applicants had not been deprived of their right of access to court by the rule laid down by the House of Lords (X v Bedfordshire County Council)