CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 1 juillet 2004

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 66 July 2004 Couillard Maugery v. France - 64796/01 Judgment 1.7.2004 [Section I] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Taking of children into care and imposition of restrictions on visiting rights and residential access; measures taken by the authorities to reunite parent and children: no violation Facts – The applicant experienced difficulties in looking after her young son, who had been abandoned by his father, and, subsequently, her daughter, who was very young at the material time. Her son and daughter, aged six-and-a-half and a few months respectively, were the subject of care orders in 1994 and 1995. Those care orders were extended annually on the basis of judicial decisions which reassessed the need for such extensions and provided, where appropriate, for arrangements that would allow for the gradual resumption of contact between the children and their mother. The reports and expert assessments carried out at the judicial authorities’ request all noted behaviour on the mother's part that was not in the interests of the children, who had refused to meet her on several occasions or had exhibited signs of distress after having met or contacted her. Taking into consideration both the mother’s personality and disturbing behaviour and the two children’s interests, health and psychological balance, the judicial authorities granted the mother regulated visiting rights, temporary residential rights and telephone or written contact, depending on the situation at the time of each review. The mother’s visiting rights were temporarily suspended at certain periods, in particular following requests to that effect by her son.   Law – Article 8: The interference with the “family life” of the applicant and her two children, prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate aim, both with regard to the provisions of the national legislation and the reasons relied on by the domestic courts, namely that of protecting the children’s rights and freedoms. As to the “necessity” in a democratic society of the placement orders in respect of the applicant’s children, the Court considered that the different courts had ruled on a very consistent basis, giving carefully reasoned and detailed decisions which had taken into account the various elements of the situation and any developments. That being so, and in view of the obviously paramount benefit in the children being placed in an environment that provided the best conditions for their development, the Court considered that the care orders were not contrary to the requirements of Article   8. As to the “necessity” in a democratic society of the restrictions on meetings and contacts between the applicant and her children, numerous decisions had been taken at regular intervals over the years on the basis of psychological and psychiatric assessments, and the courts had taken due account of a large number of reports by the social services as well as concerns and desires expressed by the children themselves. The social services were consistently concerned with the children’s wellbeing and interests and made numerous proposals to the applicant that would enable her to see her children. A number of meetings or contacts had not taken place for reasons attributable to the applicant herself, who had, moreover, rejected the various forms of assistance offered to her and had displayed hostility towards the social workers. Although a lack of co-operation by the parent concerned did not constitute an absolutely decisive factor, since it did not relieve the authorities from the duty to implement such measures as would be apt to enable the family link to be maintained, it could nonetheless only be noted that, in the instant case, which concerned a particularly complex and sensitive situation in psychological and psychiatric terms, the relevant authorities had made all the efforts that could reasonably be expected of them in order to enable family ties to be maintained, an aim which they had constantly borne in mind. They had undertaken a precise and meticulous analysis of the dangers facing the children, whose health, safety and upbringing might have appeared to be in jeopardy. In short, the authorities had taken all the measures that could reasonably be expected of them in order to enable the applicant and her children to be reunited. Furthermore, family ties had not been broken, as the mother and her two children had become significantly closer over the years. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes