AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 13485/88
by K. and A.
against the United Kingdom
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on
4 July 1988, the following members being present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
S. TRECHSEL
E. BUSUTTIL
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
J.C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
G. BATLINER
J. CAMPINOS
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
Sir Basil HALL
MM. F. MARTINEZ
C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs. J. LIDDY
Mr. J. RAYMOND, Deputy Secretary to the Commission
Having regard to Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 20 July 1987 by
K. and A. against the United Kingdom and registered on 4 January 1988 under
file No. 13485/88;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the
Rules of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The first applicant is a British citizen born in 1952 and is
resident in B., where she lives with her husband, the second applicant,
who was born in 1945 and is also a British citizen.
The first applicant gave birth to a daughter, L., out of
wedlock, on 10 April 1982. The natural father did not appear
interested in the child and the first applicant lived alone with L.
on supplementary benefit, until in October 1983 when she married the
second applicant. The second applicant, assuming the responsibility
of a father for L., approached L.'s natural father to inform him that
he wished to adopt her. The natural father apparently was against the
idea and decided to apply for access to L. In 1984 he obtained from
Barnet Magistrates Court an order for access to L., which allowed him
to take L. to his house on Sundays from 10am - 6pm and to have L. stay
with him one weekend in four. The applicants appealed, and in the
High Court, the access order was upheld, although the staying access
was removed.
The first applicant meanwhile did not comply with the access
order and L.'s natural father threatened to seek an order for her
committal to prison.
The applicants continued with their plans to adopt L. The
application for adoption was heard in B. County Court in October
1986 and the judge dismissed the application. He apparently found the
applicants to be suitable adopters and commented that they could apply
again if the natural father lost interest. The applicants appealed
unsuccessfully to the Court of Appeal on 4 February 1987.
The applicants then applied to the magistrates court to have
the access order revoked or varied. They suggested to the probation
officer appointed to the case that access visits take place in their
home rather than elsewhere. The natural father however made L. a ward
of court on 21 May 1987. An affidavit sworn by the natural father on
5 August 1987 stated "this application was made as I did not believe
that was acting in the best interests of my
daughter in refusing to allow the access to her despite my requests
and the instructions of the courts".
The applicants applied to the High Court to terminate the
wardship, but the order was confirmed on 15 July 1987 with the court
awarding care and control to the applicants. The High Court also
considered the question of access and ordered reasonable access to the
natural father, apparently to take place in future at the applicants'
home. The judge refused to terminate the wardship and when the
applicants informed the judge of their intention to re-apply for
adoption, they were informed that they would be unlikely to be
successful and that L. would remain in the custody of the court until
the age of 18.
By summons dated 9 October 1987, the applicants applied again
for L. to be dewarded but the summons was dismissed by order of the
High Court dated 5 January 1988.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain that their parental rights have been
unjustifiably violated by the wardship proceedings. They complain
that custody and other parental rights are now vested in the court and
they cannot move home, change school, leave the country or arrange
medical treatment without first applying to the court. They also
complain that the dismissal of the adoption application and the
institution and continuation of the wardship deprive L. of the
security of a family.
The applicants invoke Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention.
THE LAW
The applicants complain that their parental rights are
violated by the existence of the wardship of L. and by the dismissal
of the adoption application. They invoke Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention
which provides:
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private
and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority
with the exercise of this right except such as is in
accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic
society in the interests of national security, public safety
or the economic well-being of the country, for the
prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of
health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and
freedoms of others.
The Commission recalls that L. was made a ward of court
on 21 May 1987 by her natural father and that the applicants'
applications to deward L. have been dismissed, with the result that
L. continues to be a ward of court and the High Court is vested with
responsibility for all aspects of her welfare. The applicants
complain that, as a consequence, they are unable to make any important
decisions concerning L. without first applying to the court.
The Commission notes however that L. remains in the
applicant's care and control and that the purpose of the wardship
proceedings instituted by L.'s natural father was to secure access
visits to his daughter which had been obstructed by the first
applicant. The applicants have been able to participate as parties in
the proceedings before the High Court and to have their submissions as
to the wardship considered by the court. In the light of these
circumstances, the Commission finds that the existence of the
wardship, although constituting an interference with the applicants'
right to respect for family life protected by Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1) of
the Convention, is "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic
society" for the purpose of protecting the rights of others, namely, the
natural father and, consequently, justified under the terms of Article 8
para. 2 (Art. 8-2).
The Commission considers that the fact that the applicants'
application for adoption was dismissed does not raise any separate
issue under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention.
It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Deputy Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(J. RAYMOND) (C.A. NØRGAARD)