BG v. City Edinburgh Council [2002] ScotCS 144 (23rd May, 2002)

BG v. City Edinburgh Council [2002] ScotCS 144 (23rd May, 2002)

The appellant had locus to appeal as he was affected by the freeing order and could challenge the finding under section 18(7). The sheriff applied the correct legal test, gave sufficient reasons, and her assessment of the facts and weight given to contact history was within her discretion. There was no error in law or approach justifying interference with the sheriff's decision.

Citation
[2002] ScotCS 144
Parties
Appellant: B. G.; Petitioners and Respondents: City of Edinburgh Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Section 18 of the Adoption (scotland) Act 1978 / Appeal From Sheriff Principal's Refusal of Appeal Against Freeing for Adoption Order
Outcome
Appeal refused; sheriff principal's decision affirmed.
Legal Topics
Adoption, Parental Rights and Responsibilities, Locus Standi, European Convention on Human Rights Article 8
Family Law Child Law Adoption Parental Rights and Responsibilities Locus Standi European Convention on Human Rights Article 8

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B. G.

Appellant

City of Edinburgh Council

Petitioners and Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under Section 18 of the Adoption (scotland) Act 1978 / Appeal From Sheriff Principal's Refusal of Appeal Against Freeing for Adoption Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an unmarried father without parental rights has locus to appeal a freeing for adoption order under section 18 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978
  2. 2 Whether the sheriff erred in applying the test under section 18(7)
  3. 3 Whether the sheriff gave adequate reasons and considered relevant factors

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant had locus to appeal as he was affected by the freeing order and could challenge the finding under section 18(7). The sheriff applied the correct legal test, gave sufficient reasons, and her assessment of the facts and weight given to contact history was within her discretion. There was no error in law or approach justifying interference with the sheriff's decision.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; sheriff principal's decision affirmed.

Orders

  • The appeal is refused.
  • The order freeing the child for adoption stands.