child.

Furthermore, the best interests of the child also meant that a denial of paternity was not possible if the child had not been recognised by another man.

Since then the applicant has had no contact with the child. On 1 December 2012 L.Z. married M.Ż. and they began living together. 2.

the welfare of the child and the parenting right of the father in its decision.

    On 21 November 2017 the Geneva Adult and Child Protection Court gave a decision to withdraw E.’s de facto custody of the child as well as the right to determine the latter’s place of residence

sise chemin des 4 noyers à Chille à la SARL CITEA ; 2°) d’enjoindre à la commune de Chille : - à titre principal, de procéder à l’examen des projets proposés par M.

lodged on 16 December 2020 communicated on 27 May 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns proceedings lodged by the applicant against her former partner concerning the custody of their child

Romania (communicated case) - 44654/18   Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Alleged failure of State to address bullying at school of child with mental disorder: communicated Article

  Paragraph 1 Doubts as to reality of family ties between applicant and mother of child not wholly unfounded.

In the instant case, it was clear in January 1997, when the applicant contacted the Ministry of Justice concerning the abduction, that the child had been unlawfully removed.

Specifically, she repeatedly sought urgent preparatory measures aimed at facilitating her reunion with the child.

Moreover, as long as the return decision remained in force the presumption stood that return was also in the interests of the child.

Relevant domestic law The Family Code of the Russian Federation provides that a parent residing apart from the child is entitled to maintain contact with the child and to participate in his upbringing

for one hour during his non-contact visits and that the child and the parents could meet for one hour during monthly visits.

“in the light of the circumstances of the case and the interests of the child” and had given “due consideration” to the guardianship authority’s opinion.

The child remains a ward of court; 2. She remains under the care and control of her mother; 3.

    The case concerns proceedings regarding custody and contact between the applicant and his child, X, born in 2009. 2.

Par un arrêté du 29 juin 2022, le maire de Chailly-en-Bière a refusé de lui délivrer le permis de construire sollicité.