East Lothian Council, Re LSK [2012] ScotCS CSIH_3 (17 January 2012)

East Lothian Council, Re LSK [2012] ScotCS CSIH_3 (17 January 2012)

The sheriff's findings in fact, particularly that the appellants would not be able to care for the child properly, justified the conclusion that residence with them would be seriously detrimental to the child's welfare, thus satisfying the statutory test for a permanence order. The sheriff and Sheriff Principal exercised their discretion appropriately in not allowing further evidence, and the contact provisions were justified in light of the child's welfare.

Citation
[2012] ScotCS CSIH_3
Parties
Petitioner: East Lothian Council; First Appellant: D (LSK's mother); Second Appellant: S (LSK's father)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
17 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal (child Welfare/adoption) / Final Appellate Decision (inner House, Court of Session)
Outcome
Appeal refused; interlocutor of Sheriff Principal of 13 July 2011 adhered to.
Legal Topics
Permanence Orders, Parental Rights and Responsibilities, Adoption Authority, Contact Orders, Children's Welfare, Procedural Fairness
Family Law Child Welfare Adoption Law Permanence Orders Parental Rights and Responsibilities Adoption Authority Contact Orders Children's Welfare +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

East Lothian Council

Petitioner

D (LSK's mother)

First Appellant

S (LSK's father)

Second Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (child Welfare/adoption) / Final Appellate Decision (inner House, Court of Session)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statutory test for granting a permanence order under section 84(5)(c)(ii) of the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007 was properly applied and satisfied
  2. 2 Whether the appellants were denied procedural fairness by not being allowed to lead further evidence after remit
  3. 3 Whether the termination of direct contact between the child and appellants was justified

Ratio Decidendi

The sheriff's findings in fact, particularly that the appellants would not be able to care for the child properly, justified the conclusion that residence with them would be seriously detrimental to the child's welfare, thus satisfying the statutory test for a permanence order. The sheriff and Sheriff Principal exercised their discretion appropriately in not allowing further evidence, and the contact provisions were justified in light of the child's welfare.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; interlocutor of Sheriff Principal of 13 July 2011 adhered to.

Orders

  • Permanence order in respect of LSK confirmed, including authority to adopt and limited indirect contact provisions.
  • No order for direct contact between appellants and child.