Soares de Melo v. Portugal 2016

Mother wins legal fight to get her children back

It was a moment of great happiness for the children and for the parents, after four years of great suffering.

Maria Clotilde Almeida, one of Liliana’s lawyers, quoted on Publico (in Portuguese)

Background

In 2012, a Portuguese family court ordered seven of Liliana Melo’s ten children to be put up for adoption. The judge denied Liliana any contact with them.

Liliana’s children were her whole life. She said she loved them and did not mistreat them.

But in the court’s view, Liliana was unable to be a mother. She had neglected her children, failing to keep them clean and cared for.

Social services had raised concerns about the family for several years. Liliana was effectively bringing up the children alone, as their father was mostly absent.

On one visit, social workers noted that their apartment was dirty and had no running water or electricity because of unpaid bills. They thought the parents were failing to improve things under a child protection plan.

At one point the authorities updated the plan, requiring that Liliana get sterilised. She refused to do so, which would later be held against her in court.

Liliana and her husband went on to challenge the family court’s decision, saying it threatened their children’s wellbeing. However, their appeals ultimately failed.

By the time the European Court of Human Rights issued its judgment, the parents still had one legal challenge pending in Portugal, including a complaint that they had initially had no lawyer during the proceedings leading up to the adoption order.

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

The European court found that Portugal had breached Liliana’s right to family life by deciding to put her children up for adoption and denying her contact with them.

The Portuguese family court’s decision had also violated Liliana’s rights because her refusal to be sterilised had counted against her.

The European court found that Liliana had also been denied a role in making decisions about what would happen to her children, especially because she initially had no lawyer.

The court noted the lack of violence or abuse in the family and the strong ties between Liliana and her children. Among other things, it highlighted the authorities’ inaction in helping with the family’s financial distress.

The court is of the opinion that the [Portuguese] authorities should have taken concrete measures to allow the children to live with their mother before . . . the opening of an adoption procedure.

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, May 2016

Follow-up

Even before the European court issued its judgment in Liliana’s case, it asked Portugal in February 2015 to take steps to let her see her children. Liliana was able to start weekly visits after almost three years of being separated from them.

In April 2016, Portugal’s constitutional court overturned the original 2012 decision about the adoption order because Liliana and her husband had initially had no legal representation, which was not allowed under Portuguese law.

Their case went back to the family court, which drew up a plan to reunite the children with their mother. In September 2016, the court reached an agreement with the parents under which the children were returned to Liliana, subject to certain conditions.

Additional information

Themes:

Related examples

A mother’s fight for her child’s life leads to better guidance on parental consent to treatment

Doctors thought David Glass was dying – but his mother, Carol, did not think so. The European court ruled that the UK medical authorities should have sought approval from the courts before giving David treatment that Carol had not agreed to. The judgment led the UK to update its guidance on consent to treatment in circumstances when parents object to the proposed treatment of their...

Read more

Reforms after children were taken away from their parents because they were poor

Emílie Wallová and Jaroslav Walla’s five children were taken away by the authorities, on the grounds that they did not have enough money to look after them. The European court ruled that taking the children away in these circumstances had breached the parents’ right to family life. New legislation banned putting children in care just because of the financial situation of their parents.

Read more