PETITION OF X & Y AGAINST THE PRINCIPAL REPORTER AND KB [2022] ScotCS CSOH_32 (08 April 2022)

PETITION OF X & Y AGAINST THE PRINCIPAL REPORTER AND KB [2022] ScotCS CSOH_32 (08 April 2022)

The petitioners, as prospective adopters and foster carers, were not relevant persons under the statutory scheme and had no automatic right to attend the children's hearing. Their Article 8 rights to private life were engaged but did not entitle them to direct participation; their interests were sufficiently represented by the implementation authority. The absence of written reasons for refusal of non-disclosure did not amount to a material procedural irregularity causing prejudice, as reasons were given orally and conveyed to the petitioners. The decision to disclose the petitioners' names and address was not unlawful or irrational within the statutory framework, and the adoption rules'...

Citation
[2022] CSOH 32 P773
Parties
Petitioner: X & Y; First Respondent: The Principal Reporter; Second Respondent: KB
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
08 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Outer House, Court of Session, Opinion
Outcome
Petition refused
Legal Topics
Children's Hearings, Compulsory Supervision Orders, Non Disclosure of Information, Article 8 ECHR, Procedural Fairness, Adoption Law
Family Law Child Law Human Rights Children's Hearings Compulsory Supervision Orders Non Disclosure of Information Article 8 ECHR Procedural Fairness +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

X & Y

Petitioner

The Principal Reporter

First Respondent

KB

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Outer House, Court of Session, Opinion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether foster carers/prospective adopters are entitled to attend and make representations at a children's hearing regarding non-disclosure of their names and address
  2. 2 Whether failure to provide written reasons for refusal of non-disclosure constitutes a procedural irregularity
  3. 3 Whether the decision to disclose the petitioners' names and address was unlawful or irrational

Ratio Decidendi

The petitioners, as prospective adopters and foster carers, were not relevant persons under the statutory scheme and had no automatic right to attend the children's hearing. Their Article 8 rights to private life were engaged but did not entitle them to direct participation; their interests were sufficiently represented by the implementation authority. The absence of written reasons for refusal of non-disclosure did not amount to a material procedural irregularity causing prejudice, as reasons were given orally and conveyed to the petitioners. The decision to disclose the petitioners' names and address was not unlawful or irrational within the statutory framework, and the adoption rules'...

Court Disposition

Petition refused