Legal Research - family law case law - ECHR and English Courts
Budget: £250 – £750 GBP
Your brief will be to look for a legal precedent in either the courts of England or in the European Court of Human Rights (determining cases relating to the European Convention on Human Rights, to which the UK is a signatory) that is the nearest equivalent to the US Supreme Court ruling in Troxel v. Granville (decided 5 June 2000). Your deliverable will be a Word document that provides a brief synopsis of each case and links to the source documents of the cases. This must be done to a standard that solicitors can rely upon. The deadline is 28th January 2022.
In Troxel v. Granville, the US Supreme Court ruled that that a Washington State statute §26.10.160(3) was unconstitutional and invalid. Washington State law §26.10.160(3) permits any person to petition for visitation rights at any time and authorizes state superior courts to grant such rights whenever visitation may serve a child’s best interests. This law is nearly identical in England to a Child Arrangement Order application made under section 10(9) of the Children Act 1989.
The US Supreme Court ruled this Washington State law was unconstitutional and invalid because it sweeps too broadly in authorizing any person at any time to request (and a judge to award) visitation rights for children, subject only to the State’s particular best-interests standard. This unconstitutionally infringes on a parents’ fundamental right to rear their children and make decisions concerning the care, custody and control of their children. The government does not have the right to disregard and overturn any decision by a fit custodial parent concerning visitation whenever a third party, e.g. grandparents, files a visitation petition, based solely on the judge’s determination of the child’s best interest.
Your job is to find the closest English Court rulings or ECHR Court rulings to the US Supreme Court ruling in Troxel v. Granville, ideally supporting the rights of fit parents against the state in determining visitation rights of third parties (non-parents) to see their children.
In Troxel v. Granville, the US Supreme Court ruled that that a Washington State statute §26.10.160(3) was unconstitutional and invalid. Washington State law §26.10.160(3) permits any person to petition for visitation rights at any time and authorizes state superior courts to grant such rights whenever visitation may serve a child’s best interests. This law is nearly identical in England to a Child Arrangement Order application made under section 10(9) of the Children Act 1989.
The US Supreme Court ruled this Washington State law was unconstitutional and invalid because it sweeps too broadly in authorizing any person at any time to request (and a judge to award) visitation rights for children, subject only to the State’s particular best-interests standard. This unconstitutionally infringes on a parents’ fundamental right to rear their children and make decisions concerning the care, custody and control of their children. The government does not have the right to disregard and overturn any decision by a fit custodial parent concerning visitation whenever a third party, e.g. grandparents, files a visitation petition, based solely on the judge’s determination of the child’s best interest.
Your job is to find the closest English Court rulings or ECHR Court rulings to the US Supreme Court ruling in Troxel v. Granville, ideally supporting the rights of fit parents against the state in determining visitation rights of third parties (non-parents) to see their children.