ABERDEEN CITY COUNCIL v. X AND Y [2011] ScotSC 168 (27 October 2011)

ABERDEEN CITY COUNCIL v. X AND Y [2011] ScotSC 168 (27 October 2011)

The sheriff erred in exercising discretion to allow late opposition without considering the requirements of rule 34, the absence of excusable cause for delay, the compelling merits of the applications, and the welfare of the children. The sheriff's decision was plainly wrong and warranted appellate intervention. The appeal was allowed, the sheriff's interlocutor recalled, and the permanence and adoption orders granted as if no opposition had been lodged.

Citation
[2011] ScotSC 168
Parties
Petitioners and Appellants: Aberdeen City Council; Respondent (natural Mother): X; Respondent (natural Father): Y
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
27 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal (permanence Order and Authority to Adopt) / Interlocutor and Note on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; sheriff's interlocutor recalled; permanence order and authority to adopt granted.
Legal Topics
Permanence Orders, Adoption, Parental Rights and Responsibilities, Procedural Compliance, Late Opposition
Family Law Child Law Permanence Orders Adoption Parental Rights and Responsibilities Procedural Compliance Late Opposition

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aberdeen City Council

Petitioners and Appellants

X

Respondent (natural Mother)

Y

Respondent (natural Father)

Procedural Posture

Appeal (permanence Order and Authority to Adopt) / Interlocutor and Note on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sheriff erred in allowing late forms of response to be lodged by the respondents in opposition to permanence and adoption orders.
  2. 2 Whether the sheriff exercised discretion unreasonably in permitting further procedure after late opposition.

Ratio Decidendi

The sheriff erred in exercising discretion to allow late opposition without considering the requirements of rule 34, the absence of excusable cause for delay, the compelling merits of the applications, and the welfare of the children. The sheriff's decision was plainly wrong and warranted appellate intervention. The appeal was allowed, the sheriff's interlocutor recalled, and the permanence and adoption orders granted as if no opposition had been lodged.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; sheriff's interlocutor recalled; permanence order and authority to adopt granted.

Orders

  • Permanence order made under section 80 of the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007 vesting parental responsibilities and rights in Aberdeen City Council.
  • Ancillary provisions under section 82 of the Act vesting further parental responsibilities and rights in the local authority and extinguishing those of X and Y except for maintenance of personal relations and direct contact.