## Facts

- P (mother) and C (father) lived in the United Kingdom; their child S was born in 1998.
- Before S’s birth, authorities learned of prior U.S. child-protection proceedings involving P, including allegations of induced illness and a criminal conviction for a lesser offense; P’s older child was ordered to live with his father.
- A local authority opened a risk assessment concerning the unborn child, placed the unborn child on a child protection register, and sought expert assessment.
- After P and C withdrew consent to expert assessment, the authority decided before birth to seek emergency protective measures at delivery.
- On the day of S’s birth, the authority obtained an emergency protection order, removed S from the hospital, and placed her in foster care.
- P and C had supervised contact several times per week; observers reported they developed a strong relationship with S.
- The authority pursued care proceedings and later sought to free S for adoption under domestic child-care legislation.
- During a lengthy care hearing, P’s lawyers were permitted to withdraw; the court granted only a short adjournment, and P represented herself in a complex multi-day proceeding. C later disengaged from the proceedings.
- The domestic court made a care order based on findings about P’s mental health and risk to S, and soon thereafter freed S for adoption, refused to adjourn for new representation, and provided no guaranteed future direct contact.
- S was placed with prospective adopters and later adopted.

## Issues

1. Whether the emergency removal of S at birth, the care order, and the freeing for adoption (including severance of direct contact) constituted disproportionate interferences with family life under Article 8.
2. Whether the refusal to provide effective legal representation and adequate adjournments in complex care and adoption proceedings violated the right to a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1.
3. Whether the measures also violated Article 12 (right to marry and found a family).

## Decision

- The court found a violation of Article 8 based on deficiencies in the procedures leading to the care and adoption outcomes, including the emergency removal at birth and the process culminating in adoption and loss of contact.
- The court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 because P was effectively required to conduct exceptionally complex proceedings without legal representation and without reasonable adjournments to obtain new counsel.
- The court found no separate violation of Article 12, treating the complaint as adding nothing material beyond Articles 6 and 8.
- The court awarded just satisfaction (non-pecuniary damages and costs) but did not overturn the adoption.

## Legal Principles

- Adoption and other measures permanently severing family ties require particularly weighty reasons, and the decision-making process must provide strong procedural safeguards consistent with Article 8.
- Emergency removal of a newborn is an especially severe measure; authorities must justify why less intrusive options are insufficient, and procedures must allow meaningful consideration of reunification.
- Article 8 review focuses not only on substantive reasons for intervention but also on whether the process fairly balanced the child’s welfare and the parents’ interests, especially where consequences are irreversible.
- In complex child-protection litigation with severe and lasting consequences, effective legal representation and a genuine opportunity to present one’s case may be necessary to satisfy Article 6 § 1; denying reasonable adjournments can render proceedings unfair.

## Conclusion

The court held that the United Kingdom violated Articles 6 and 8 where expedited child-protection and adoption proceedings, initiated by emergency removal at birth, progressed to permanent severance of family ties without adequate procedural safeguards and without ensuring a fair hearing through effective legal representation.


P., C. & S. v. United Kingdom, App. No. 56547/00 (Eur. Ct. H.R. July 16, 2002)