The Supreme Court performed study on case-law in adjudicating claims on rights to charge and communication and provisions for a child.

In this study, case-law in cases about establishment of separate charge, deprivation of rights to charge, establishment or deprivation of rights to communication, establishment of child’s domicile, establishment of paternity and issues related to child’s provisions, is analysed.

The Supreme Court indicates: child’s interests will be a criterion when adjudicating a claim about everyday charge over a child, also about right to establish child’s domicile, as the law doesn’t provide any priority rights for one or another parent. So the court has to verify and evaluate also impartial opportunities of parents to provide conditions necessary for wholesome development of a child, subjective opportunities of parents and subjective attitude of a child towards parents.

When adjudicating claims arising from family legal relations, issues on children’s rights become more topical, as parents reside in different countries ever more often. Conclusions of study show that, when establishing separate charge of a parent over the child, child’s interests should be taken into account. If a child is located to another country for permanent residence, his/her ability of adaptation in other country, as well as life and work conditions of a child and parent wishing to relocate the child for permanent residence in another country, must be evaluated. However, all these conditions should be evaluated as they are for the moment of adjudication, not as they were before filing a claim; moreover, emotional and actual relation of a child with each parent must also be assessed.

Conclusions of a study characterise difference between everyday and separate charge, issues on how costs necessary for child’s needs are calculated in claims about collection of provisions, how temporary regulation is implemented in cases on divorce, and other issues related to provision of children’s rights are explained.

Significant conclusions are made about private life of children. The Supreme Court indicates: child’s private life should be respected by everyone, even by lawful representative. Although child needs lawful representative to implement his/her rights, it doesn’t mean that child’s representative has absolute rights, as sometimes rights to protection of data is superior than desires of a parent or another lawful representative. Rights to protection of data are given to a child, firstly, not to lawful representative implementing these rights.

The study performed includes analysis and research of case-law for time period between 2007 and the first half of 2012. In total, 30 rulings adopted in this period, are reviewed, and issues are grouped according to corresponding problems. Both rulings adopted in civil cases and administrative cases are analysed. This study doesn’t include analysis of issues, to which answers are already given in summary of case-law on application of family legal standards, performed by the Supreme Court in 2007.

The study is performed by Dr.iur. Ingmara Bergmane in cooperation with the Department of Civil Cases of the Senate and the Division of case-law of the Supreme Court.

The study is available on the home page of the Supreme Court www.at.gov.lv in Chapter Court Information/ Compilations of Court Decisions.

 

Information prepared by

Rasma Zvejniece, the Head of the Division of Communication of the Supreme Court

E-mail: rasma.zvejniece@at.gov.lv, telephone: 67020396, 28652211