• DOI:10.1017/S0008197307000505
• Corpus ID: 221149784

ARREST FOR QUESTIONING

@article{Spencer2007ARRESTFQ,
  title={ARREST FOR QUESTIONING},
  author={John R. Ll.B Spencer},
  journal={The Cambridge Law Journal},
  year={2007},
  volume={66},
  pages={282 - 284}
}

• J. Spencer
• Published 1 July 2007
• Psychology
• The Cambridge Law Journal

1511, 2004) to be given access to identifying information relating to their biological parents, does not give to those children, respectively, a legal right to be told that they are adopted or the circumstances of their conception. Despite evidence that the overwhelming majority of children produced with the assistance of donated gametes remain unaware of this, the government has indicated that it will not impose an obligation on parents to tell them, believing that the matter is better governed by ‘‘good practice’’ (Department of Health, Review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, Cm. 6989, para. 2.58, December 2006). The current enthusiasm for harmonisation of family law in Europe does not apparently extend to filiation, on which matter the laws of individual states could hardly be more discordant. As such, states enjoy a significant margin of appreciation and the extent of their positive obligations in facilitating the establishment of biological filiation is unclear. There is a strong case for the ECtHR to have regard, in its interpretation of ECHR rights, to the content of the child’s rights in the UNCRC.