Family Courts and the Human Right Act

Family Courts and the Human Right Act

from collusion in the family court guardian and judge by never-trust-cafcass

If you are in the family courts, the following report is very important for you to read.  Understand:  they can not treat you you unfairly in Court, neither can social workers, article 8 right to life, here are your human rights and the childs human rights inside the family court.

Human Rights Act and Family Law

  Relevant Provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights

Article 8 (1)

• Right to ‘respect’ for family and private life
• Any interference constitutes a violation of Article 8 (1)
• Implies both positive obligations on the State and a negative obligation
• Applies to the family unit and the individual members, including parents and children.

Article 8(2)

• Onus is on the state to demonstrate that the interference was justified – 4 steps

a.       In accordance with the law

b.       Necessary in a democratic society

c.        In pursuance of a legitimate aim – i.e. protection of national security, public safety, economic well being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of rights and freedoms. (Note the list of ‘aims’ is exhaustive)

d.       Measures taken are proportionate to the pursuance of that aim.

• Subject at the ECHR level to the ‘margin of appreciation’ – not relevant in domestic case law – but there may be an measure of discretion given to public authorities
• Convention does not define who or what is a ‘family - includes the non marital family and protects a relationships between parents and children, siblings, children and grandparents and blood relatives generally - Limited recognition of same sex partnerships – fit under ‘private life’
• Johnson v Ireland (1986) 9 EHRR 203, importance of the blood tie – requires the State to provide de jure and de facto protection for the family relationship.
• Significant weight is attached to the ‘blood tie’ -  Keegan v Ireland [1994] 3FCR 165– ‘family life’ exists between parents and biological children from the moment of birth – exclusion of parents from the life of the child can only be justified in exceptional circumstances.
• Johansen v Norway [1996] 23 EHRR 33 – obligation to work towards reunification – as swiftly as is possible while at the same time protecting the best interests of the child. “In carrying out this balancing exercise, the Court will attach particular importance to the best interests of the child, which, depending on their nature and seriousness, may override those of the parent”
• K and T v Finland [2001] 2FLR 707 – removal of the child from the parents must not be done in such a way as to destroy the natural bond – the State must consider the long term prospects – there should not be a presumption in favour of permanent separation – particularly important for very young children to maintain the family tie
• P, C and S v UK [2002] 3 FCR 1 – removal of a child at birth required exceptional justification – must be an immediate risk to the child and if removal is not supported by relevant and sufficient reasons will breach Art 8.   Note the procedural issues in this decision also.
• .

Article 6

• Right to fair trial in the determination of ‘civil rights or obligations’ – must be real and effective not theoretical and illusory – see Airey v Ireland  (1979) 2 EHRR
• Article 6 (1) requires that decisions be made by a fair and impartial tribunal
• Decision making must be transparent, parents must be involved there must be disclosure to parents of all relevant documents
• Includes judicial and administrative stages of the proceedings
• There are procedural guarantees in Article 8 which can give rise to separate convention breaches – court has found due process to be implied under Article 8 given the importance of what is at stake

1. When and Where to use HRA in Family Proceedings

Re V (A Child)(Care Proceedings: Human Rights Claims) CA [2004] 1 FCR 338

o    Q of the manner in which issues regarding potential breaches of Articles 8 and 6 should be addressed during the care proceedings or whether the appropriate route was a freestanding claim under s.7 of the HRA

o    CA found that any allegation pursuant to s.6 (1) HRA that the LA has acted contrary to ECHR arts 6 or 8 can and should be dealt with during those proceedings

o    Applications to transfer the matter up to a higher court are to be strongly discouraged

Re M (Care Proceedings; Judicial Review) [2003] 2FLR 171

• Save in wholly exceptional circumstances it was not appropriate to bring a judicial review action to prevent LA commencing emergency protection or care proceedings – JR an action of last resort which should not be used where there was another remedy available – even if there were relevant HRA arguments.

Re L (Care Proceedings: Human Rights Claims) [2004] 1FCR per Munby J

• Para 22 “the substantive and procedural guarantees afforded to parents by Art 8 of the European Convention applies at all stages of child protection….not merely when the care proceedings are on foot but also after the care proceedings have come to an end…where the care proceedings have come to an end – the appropriate remedy may well be a freestanding application under s7 (1)(a) of the HRA 1998, the application should be heard in the Family division if possible by a judge with experience of sitting in the Administrative Court”

 Re V (Care: Pre Birth Actions) CA [2005] 21 FLR 627

• Findings of a breach of Articles 6 and 8 should not automatically result in an award of damages – proceedings must be considered as a whole.

5.                   Is the HRA ‘value added’ in family proceedings

A.      HRA in Public Law Proceedings

• Impact of the Act has been largely confined to procedural matters, focusing on parental involvement in decision making, disclosure

RE M (Care: Challenging Decisions by Local Authority [2001] 2 FLR 1300

• Holman J  -LA decision quashed because parents were not sufficiently involved – LA decided to change a care plan after the care order was made – to place the children for adoption rather than rehabilitate them to parents – decision was made at a meeting which the parents were not invited to attend – amounted to an unlawful action under Article 8
• Possible to take a freestanding action under s6 and s7 of the HRA – and the court was empowered to grant relief if appropriate under s.8
• “This case has emphasised to me what a heavy responsibility and wide discretion the Human Rights Act 1998 has placed upon this court in considering, after the event, the lawfulness of a decision making process”

Re G (Care: Challenge to Local Authority’s Decision) [2003]  2FLR 42  per Munby J

• Article 8(1) guarantees substantive rights to parents involved in care proceedings but also afforded procedural guarantees. 
• “The procedural protection offered by Article 8 was not confined to the trial process but extended to all stages of the decision making process in child protection process in child protection proceedings”
• Munby J at 44 para 2 – “the facts reveal what I can only call a ‘mindset’ and a ‘culture’ so seemingly oblivious to the imperative requirements of Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 (the ECHR) and so unwittingly careless of the need to treat parents with fairness, that I cannot let the matter pass without some comment.
• “Whilst Article 8 contains no explicit procedural requirements, the decision making process leading to measures of interference must be fair and such as to afford due respect to the interests safeguarded by Art 8”
• “This is it seems to me is a classic example of the kind of case where, whatever may have been the case previously, the Human Rights Act 1998 gives parents treated as badly as the parents in this case appear to have been. …Effective remedies for the breach by a local authority of either the substantive or procedural requirement of Article 8”.

Re L (Care: Assessment: Fair Trial) [2002] 2 FLR 730

• Article 6 rights extend to all stages of the proceedings – which is potentially important – whereas Art 8 rights are inherently qualified – parent’s right to fair trial under article 6 is absolute – and cannot be qualified by reference to or balanced against any rights under Article 8
• Raised concern that the level of disclosure and parental involvement in proceedings – fell short of well-established principles of domestic law and the standards of article 8 and article 6
• Para 30 – Article 8 imposes positive obligations of disclosure on the local authority
• Article 8 guarantees fairness in the decision making process at all stages of the proceedings – see para 88
• Where the LA acts in a way which is unlawful or incompatible with the human rights act can bring a freestanding application under s7 (1)(a)

Removal of Children

Re H (A child) (Interim Care Order) [2002] 1 FCR 350 at 39 per Thorpe LJ –

• …”The Arts 6 and 8 rights of parents required the judge to abstain from premature determination of their case for the future beyond the final fixture, unless the welfare of the child demanded it.”

Re B (Care: Interference with Family Life) [2003] EWCA 2 FLR 813 – per Thorpe LJ

• “Where the application is for a care order empowering the local authority to remove a child or children from the family, the judge in modern times may not make such an order without considering the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950, Article 8 rights of the adult members of the family and of the children of the family.  Accordingly he must not sanction such an interference with family life unless he is satisfied that that is both necessary and proportionate and that no other less radical form of order would achieve the essential end of promoting the welfare of the children.”

X Council V B [2005] 1FLR 341 Munby J

• When dealing with emergency measures – the imminent danger should be actually established – if it is still possible to hear the parents of the children and to discuss the measures with them – there should be no room for emergency action
• Imminent danger must be actually established – an EPO is draconian and an extremely harsh measure – must be necessary and proportionate and court must be satisfied that no less radical measure will achieve the end of safeguarding the welfare of the child
• Evidential burden on the LA is very heavy …”it is important that both the local authority and the FPC approach every application for an EPO with an anxious awareness of the extreme gravity of the relief being sought and a scrupulous regard for the European Convention Rights of both the child and the parents

Hasse v Germany [2004] 2 FLR 39 at 90-95 –

• The taking of a newborn baby into public care at the moment of its birth is an extremely harsh measure.  There must be extraordinarily compelling reasons before a baby can be physically removed from its mother…
• a stricter scrutiny is called for in respect of any further limitations by the authorities, for example on restrictions of parental rights and access
• At para 101 “it is incumbent on the competent national authorities to examine whether some less intrusive interference into family life at such a critical point in the lives of the parents and the child is not possible’
• See Munby in X Council v B – at 362 – “failure to comply with this requirement may expose the local authority to claims it has acted unlawfully notwithstanding the EPO”

Venema v Netherlands [2003] application for an EPO made without any notification to the parents and without any discussion with the parents breached Article 8 – parents were presented with a fait accompli without any sufficient justification

Assessments

Re G (Interim care order: Residential Assessment) [2004] 1 FLR 876

B. HRA in Private Law Proceedings

• Primary issue is enforcement
• Johansen – at para 88 – there is a need to exercise exceptional diligence in view of the risk that the passage of time may result in a de facto determination of the matter’
• Hokkanen v Finland [1996] 1 FLR 289 at para 55 – ‘’right of a parent to have measures taken with a view to his or her being reunited with the child and an obligation for the national authorities to take such action’
• Ignaccolo-Zenide v Romania [22001] 31 EHRR – rights are illusory if the contracting state allows a final binding judgement to remain inoperative to the detriment of one party – decisive that national authorities taken all the necessary steps to facilitate execution
• See RE D (Intractable contact dispute: publicity) [2004] 1 FLR 1226

If the local authority are accusing you of something and take your child, yet you stand no trial, have no right to reply and are not given an opportunity to reply, they are guilty of article 6 and 8 of the Human Rights Act.  Take Action.