Mabon v Mabon and Others
CA
26 May 2005
Daily Law Notes Report Summary
R 9.2A of the Family Proceedings Rules 1991, as amended, was
sufficiently widely framed to meet the United Kingdom's
obligations to comply with art 12 of the UN Convention on the
Rights of the Child and art 8 of the European Convention on Human
Rights. Given the growing acknowledgment of the autonomy and
consequential rights of children the courts were obliged, in the
case of articulate teenagers, to accept that the right to freedom
of expression and participation outweighed the paternalistic
judgment of welfare.
EPC COMMENT: does this mean that "articulate teenagers" have the right to decide what is best for them in terms of their parenting? If their wishes conflict with their welfare, which should prevail? The law puts the children's welfare as paramount. How can the child's right to "freedom of expression" outweigh the paramountcy principle? This is yet another example of the judiciary making law, which is unacceptable. It is for Parliament to shape our laws. The judiciary's job is to apply them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment