The European Court of Human Right (ECtHR) has found a violation of Article 8 (right to family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in the case of a woman who complained she was deprived of parental responsibility and denied all contact with her children when her children were taken into care on the basis of her poverty.
In 2012, the Portuguese courts found that the applicant did not provide the children with adequate material living conditions and neglected them. The applicant was unemployed and survived on a small family allowance, while the father of the children was frequently absent from the family home. Domestic authorities determined that the applicant was incapable of performing her role as a mother, and noted that she persistently refused to undergo sterilisation as stipulated in an agreement reached with the social services. In reaching judgement, the courts relied solely on the social services’ reports and did not order any expert independent assessment of the applicant’s parenting abilities or the emotional wellbeing of the children. No evidence of mistreatment or abuse was found and the ECtHR noted the appearance of a particularly strong bond of affection between the applicant and her children.
In making its finding, the ECtHR conveyed a strong message on childrearing responsibilities and child protection, stating families living in poverty cannot be punished for their deprivation and their children should not be ‘rescued’ from them. Instead, recognition must be given to the fact that children are not the exclusive responsibility of parents, and States must fulfil their supportive role and provide material and other forms of assistance to make family life possible. The Court was of the view that the placement as well as the deprivation of parental and contact rights was not necessary in a democratic society.
The Count found that Article 8 should be construed and applied in such a way as to provide effective safeguards and protections of the right to family life. It also noted that while it may be restricted, any removal and placement of the children as an interference with the right to family life can only be justified if prescribed by law, in pursuit of a legitimate aim and necessary in a democratic society. The Court emphasised the State’s positive obligations to create conditions that enable the parent-child bonds to develop. In conjunction with the principles of the best interest of the child and the last-resort nature of family separation, the Court also noted the concluding observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC).
The Court concluded the proceedings as a whole were contrary to the right to a family life and the domestic courts had not remained within reasonable limits upon which they could restrict this right. There was, accordingly, a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
Click here for the full judgment.