C. v. Finland

C. (plaintiff) and a Finnish citizen (the mother) married, had two children, and lived in Switzerland. The mother took the children to Finland, filed for divorce in a Finnish trial court, and began living with her partner, L. After bitter litigation, the mother received custody, and C. received parenting time. The mother died, and subsequently C. and L. filed custody petitions in a Finnish trial court. If C. prevailed, the children would have been required to move to Switzerland. The children wished to live with L. and were afraid of moving to Switzerland, though there had been no problems in their visits with C. There was no evidence that C. was an unfit father, and there was evidence that he had a good relationship with his children. There was also evidence that L. had a heavy influence on the children. The Finnish trial court granted custody to C. L. appealed, and the custody order was stayed during the appeal. The children refused to visit C. outside the presence of a third-party observer, and C. declined to exercise parenting time in the presence of a third party. The court of appeal found that the children’s wishes did not align with their best interests and affirmed the custody order. The children eventually refused to visit C. L. appealed to the Finland Supreme Court. The court did not consider C.’s parental rights and instead held that custody should be awarded to L. because Finnish law did not allow enforcement of a custody order that required a child to move against his or her wishes. The European Convention on Human Rights (the convention), also known as the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, contained a provision, Article 8, that (1) recognized that everyone had the right to respect for his or her family life and (2) prohibited public authorities from interfering with that right unless the interference was in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society. C. filed a complaint in the European Court of Human Rights, alleging that Finland (defendant) violated his Article 8 right to respect for family life. There was no dispute that custody deprivation was an interference with C.’s Article 8 right and was in accordance with Finnish law. C. argued that custody deprivation was not necessary in a democratic society.