A.M.M. IN TERMS OF SECTION 160(1)(a) OF THE CHILDREN'S HEARINGS (SCOTLAND) ACT 2011 AGAINST A DETERMINATION OF A PRE HEARING PANEL HELD AT GLENROTHES [2014] ScotSC 3 (08 January 2014)

A.M.M. IN TERMS OF SECTION 160(1)(a) OF THE CHILDREN'S HEARINGS (SCOTLAND) ACT 2011 AGAINST A DETERMINATION OF A PRE HEARING PANEL HELD AT GLENROTHES [2014] ScotSC 3 (08 January 2014)

The panel applied the test for significant involvement too narrowly and failed to consider the best interests of the child. The appellant's regular and substantial involvement in JM's upbringing, including a period of sole care, justified her being deemed a relevant person.

Citation
[2014] ScotSC 3
Parties
Appellant: A M M; Respondent: Reporter; Interested Party: JM's mother
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
08 January 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Section 160(1)(a) of the Children's Hearings (scotland) Act 2011 / Appeal Against Pre Hearing Panel Determination
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Relevant Person Status, Children's Hearings, Significant Involvement in Upbringing, Best Interests of the Child
Child Law Family Law Relevant Person Status Children's Hearings Significant Involvement in Upbringing Best Interests of the Child

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A M M

Appellant

Reporter

Respondent

JM's mother

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under Section 160(1)(a) of the Children's Hearings (scotland) Act 2011 / Appeal Against Pre Hearing Panel Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant had significant involvement in the upbringing of the child JM so as to be deemed a relevant person under Section 81(3) of the Children's Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011

Ratio Decidendi

The panel applied the test for significant involvement too narrowly and failed to consider the best interests of the child. The appellant's regular and substantial involvement in JM's upbringing, including a period of sole care, justified her being deemed a relevant person.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appellant is deemed a relevant person in respect of JM.