Lisbon may have impact on children’s rights

THE LISBON Treaty could have a major impact on children’s rights in the Irish courts, a child law expert told the Four Jurisdictions Family Law Conference.

Dr Ursula Kilkelly of UCC said that the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which was appended to the Lisbon Treaty, contained a section dedicated to children. This guaranteed them the right to protection and care, the right to express their views freely, the right to have them taken into account in proceedings concerning them and the right to have direct contact with their parents unless this was contrary to their interests.

She said there were now a large number of international instruments that had a bearing on children’s rights in Irish law, of which the most influential was the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Rulings of the European Court of Human Rights reflected its principles.

However, she said that the recent Supreme Court ruling on the case concerning the sperm donor and the lesbian couple cast doubt on the status of the European court in Irish law.

Michael Long QC told the conference that there had been an increase in the representation of children in family law proceedings in Northern Ireland. However, there had been a series of cases in which parents had not only sought to influence children but have also sought to involve them as parties in disputes against another parent.

Anthony Hayden QC said that there were circumstances in England where the rights of parents to know of a care plan for a child were over-ridden in the interests of the child.

He described a case where the court was asked for a declaration that the local authority concerned could implement a birth plan to take a child away from its mother at birth, without informing the mother of the plan.

The mother was serving a prison sentence for a serious assault on an older child. One prison note recorded that she had always maintained that her children would be better off dead than in the care of the local authority. The consultant clinical psychologist in the case had concluded that the risk to the unborn child was high.

The judge concluded that the very stringent tests required for such drastic action had been met in this case.