CF v MF and GF & Anor [2017] ScotCS CSIH_44 (11 July 2017)

CF v MF and GF & Anor [2017] ScotCS CSIH_44 (11 July 2017)

The pre-hearing panel was entitled to find that the grandparents no longer had significant involvement in the child’s upbringing, based on the lack of recent contact and the child’s clear and sustained wishes. State intervention was not the sole or dominant cause of the lack of involvement. The sheriff erred in law by substituting his own view and by treating state intervention as determinative. The panel’s decision was justified and should be restored.

Citation
[2017] ScotCS CSIH_44
Parties
Appellant: CF; First Respondents: MF and GF; Second Respondent: Scottish Reporter
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
11 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal by Stated Case Under Section 164 of the Children’s Hearings (scotland) Act 2011 / Appeal to Inner House, Court of Session, From Sheriff's Decision on Appeal From Pre Hearing Panel
Outcome
Appeal allowed; sheriff’s decision quashed; pre-hearing panel’s decision restored
Legal Topics
Relevant Person Status, Children’s Hearings (scotland) Act 2011, Appeals From Children’s Hearings, Significant Involvement in Upbringing, State Intervention and Locus Standi
Family Law Child Law Administrative Law Relevant Person Status Children’s Hearings (scotland) Act 2011 Appeals From Children’s Hearings Significant Involvement in Upbringing State Intervention and Locus Standi

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CF

Appellant

MF and GF

First Respondents

Scottish Reporter

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal by Stated Case Under Section 164 of the Children’s Hearings (scotland) Act 2011 / Appeal to Inner House, Court of Session, From Sheriff's Decision on Appeal From Pre Hearing Panel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pre-hearing panel erred in removing relevant person status from grandparents under section 81A(3) of the 2011 Act
  2. 2 Whether the sheriff erred in overturning the panel’s decision on the basis of state intervention and the child’s wishes
  3. 3 Proper approach to appeals under section 160—scope of sheriff’s review and test of 'justified'

Ratio Decidendi

The pre-hearing panel was entitled to find that the grandparents no longer had significant involvement in the child’s upbringing, based on the lack of recent contact and the child’s clear and sustained wishes. State intervention was not the sole or dominant cause of the lack of involvement. The sheriff erred in law by substituting his own view and by treating state intervention as determinative. The panel’s decision was justified and should be restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; sheriff’s decision quashed; pre-hearing panel’s decision restored

Orders

  • Case remitted to sheriff with direction to refuse the appeal against the pre-hearing panel’s decision
  • Grandparents to no longer be deemed relevant persons in relation to the child