In the convention the term family is specific for each individual case. For example there are no two families that are the same therefore a person’s experience of a family life would be different to another person’s experience. For this reason you do not have to be married to have the right to a family life. The convention also protects the right to a family life of parents who are separated, because this article ensures that a parent still has the chance to see their children if they are not living with them. However interferences must be made in cases of child neglect and abuse, as the welfare of the child in question must be put first ahead of someone’s right to a family life. For reasons such as this would interference by the state be completely justified. You are entitled to this right if you are an asylum seeker or immigrant, like for example in the case of EM.
In the case of EM if she was to be returned to Lebanon she would then lose the right to a family life. She was not claiming that the United Kingdom were not allowing this right, however she was claiming that if she were to be removed from the country, then this would lead to her losing this right as she would lose the custody of her son.
EM (Lebanon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
In the case of EM vs. Secretary of State for the Home Department EM was an immigrant from Lebanon who emigrated to the UK in 2004 because once her son reached a certain age she would lose custody of him in Lebanon, this was due to the Muslim laws in place in the country at the time. EM divorced the father of the child back in Lebanon because he would abuse her, for example he ended her first pregnancy by hitting her in the stomach with a heavy vase. If she was to return to Lebanon, she would lose the custody of the child but also face imprisonment on a charge of kidnap. Although she is not from the UK and Lebanon is not part of the convention, her right to respect for her family life would be violated if she would be sent back to Lebanon, because the family life that she has known would be torn apart. This was one of the grounds for her defence. The claim was being brought against the UK for this reason.
The House of Lords came to a decision that she and her son should be allowed to stay in the country on humanitarian grounds, stating that the reasons for this decision were “compelling”. I agree with this decision because this is the only experience of family life EM and her son AF have experienced so to remove them from the country, sending the child back to his father and the mother possibly to prison, would absolutely violate section eight of the ECHR. If the child was to be removed from the mother at the age of seven due to Lebanese law with only the option of supervised visits available then this would absolutely violate EM’s rights under article eight. Also since the supervised visits would not be in the home AF was brought up in then this is not the family life both people have known, therefore this does not constitute family life at all.
Conclusion
To sum up my essay I would say that I agree with the decision of the House of Lords because as said in court, the evidence is compelling that sending the mother and son back to Lebanon would completely tear apart the essence of their family life as the mother would be charged with kidnap and due to Lebanese law the child would be handed over to the father, and still if the father were found to be unfit as the parent, the son would be passed to the paternal grandfather or a member of the fathers family, not however the mother. I can see the reasons for the case against her because in a way once she would be back in Lebanon she would no longer have that right since Lebanon is not a member of the convention however essentially it would be down to the United Kingdom for not respecting EM’s right to a family life.