Fife Council for an Order in Respect of the Child EC [2015] ScotCS CSIH_74 (29 October 2015)

Fife Council for an Order in Respect of the Child EC [2015] ScotCS CSIH_74 (29 October 2015)

The sheriff was entitled, on the evidence, to conclude that residence with either parent would be seriously detrimental to the child's welfare and that a permanence order was better for the child than not making one. The sheriff was also entitled to conclude that the welfare of the child required dispensing with the father's consent to adoption, applying the correct test of necessity and proportionality. The sheriff's reasoning was adequate and addressed all realistic options. The requirements of the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007 and Article 8 ECHR were met.

Citation
[2015] ScotCS CSIH_74
Parties
Applicant and Respondent: Fife Council; First Respondent: M (first respondent, natural mother); Second Respondent and Appellant: F (second respondent and appellant, natural father)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
29 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Permanence Order and Authority to Adopt / Decision on Appeal From Sheriff Court
Outcome
Appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutor affirmed (except for paragraph (f) in relation to M, found unnecessary and inappropriate).
Legal Topics
Permanence Orders, Adoption, Parental Rights and Responsibilities, Dispensing With Parental Consent, Welfare of the Child, Article 8 ECHR, Proportionality, Best Interests of the Child
Family Law Child Law Human Rights Permanence Orders Adoption Parental Rights and Responsibilities Dispensing With Parental Consent Welfare of the Child +3 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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fife Council

Applicant and Respondent

M (first respondent, natural mother)

First Respondent

F (second respondent and appellant, natural father)

Second Respondent and Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Permanence Order and Authority to Adopt / Decision on Appeal From Sheriff Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sheriff erred in making a permanence order under section 80 of the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007
  2. 2 Whether the sheriff erred in granting authority for adoption and dispensing with parental consent under section 83(2)(d)
  3. 3 Whether the sheriff failed to apply the correct test of necessity and proportionality, particularly in light of Article 8 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The sheriff was entitled, on the evidence, to conclude that residence with either parent would be seriously detrimental to the child's welfare and that a permanence order was better for the child than not making one. The sheriff was also entitled to conclude that the welfare of the child required dispensing with the father's consent to adoption, applying the correct test of necessity and proportionality. The sheriff's reasoning was adequate and addressed all realistic options. The requirements of the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007 and Article 8 ECHR were met.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutor affirmed (except for paragraph (f) in relation to M, found unnecessary and inappropriate).

Orders

  • Permanence order with authority to adopt affirmed.
  • Consent of both parents to adoption dispensed with.