M. v. the United Kingdom - 37060/06 Judgment 28.9.2010 [Section IV] Article 14 Discrimination Difference in treatment on grounds of sexual orientation in relation to child-support regulations: violation

It held that the child was unable to sleep without her mother and was unwilling to travel abroad without her; accordingly, it granted the applicant contact with his daughter in Georgia three weeks per

Court to the Committee in this case and to the violation established on account of the biological father’s right to family life due to shortcomings in the decision-making processes by the Norwegian child

service and the courts on the lack of evidence of physical resistance and their failure to assess whether there had been valid consent, with due regard for the applicant’s particular vulnerability, as a child

failure to examine the case in the most expeditious manner and due to the non-enforcement of the domestic court’s interim order, which had set out the contact arrangements between the applicant and his child

Such a requirement was understandable and was clearly directed at avoiding possible abuses in situations where there was no official information on the birth of a child or its biological parents.

Aymard, magistrat désigné, - les observations de Me Chelly, qui reprend en les développant les moyens de la requête ; - les observations de M. A, assisté de M.

The younger child has just started nursery school.

According to the amended Article 177 of the Civil Code, the mother still has sole custody of her child born out of wedlock.

arrangement for visits to the child would be given was rejected by the President of the Regional Court on 26 September 1985.

    Act XXXI of 1997 on Child Protection provides: Section 6 “(5) The child has the right to respect for his or her human dignity, to protection against abuse – physical, sexual or mental violence

However, an adoption would, for instance, confer on her the same legal status as her de facto sibling, namely the foster parent's adoptive child.

In the light of DNA analysis, it was established that M. was the applicant’s biological child. The applicant subsequently recognised his paternity.

As to the sanctions, the court noted that the applicant had intended to provoke general discussion about child pornography.

  A child was born on 20 November 1992, and the couple married on 16 April 1993.

    Particular procedure to be followed when questioning a minor child or adolescent “1.

By a letter of 7   November 2023, the applicant’s further child and heir, born in 2002, expressed her wish to pursue the application in the applicant’s stead. 13.

The third applicant – a child – was born out of wedlock in January   2004. The second applicant does not live with the child and his mother.

The police officers gave him water and cookies, and the child was calm. 8 .