The link is to a commentary about the European Court Case PC&S.
It includes the following:
It is striking that the Strasbourg Court concluded that the child's rights under the procedural guarantees in Art 8 were infringed, although S was legally represented throughout. It is unclear what message it was trying to send by this finding. Was it that S's legal representatives, for the proper protection of her interests, should not have agreed to proceed without representation for the parents? If so, the lesson is for CAFCASS, the body which provides guardians for children in such cases. (CAFCASS guardians must be considered as a "public authority" for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998 and are therefore required to act in conformity with the Convention.)
It includes the following:
It is striking that the Strasbourg Court concluded that the child's rights under the procedural guarantees in Art 8 were infringed, although S was legally represented throughout. It is unclear what message it was trying to send by this finding. Was it that S's legal representatives, for the proper protection of her interests, should not have agreed to proceed without representation for the parents? If so, the lesson is for CAFCASS, the body which provides guardians for children in such cases. (CAFCASS guardians must be considered as a "public authority" for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998 and are therefore required to act in conformity with the Convention.)
Comments