LSK (A Child), Re [2011] ScotSC 34 (13 July 2011)

LSK (A Child), Re [2011] ScotSC 34 (13 July 2011)

The sheriff did not err in law or procedure; the statutory test under section 84(5)(c)(ii) was sufficiently addressed based on the evidence and findings, the appellants had a fair hearing, and there was no realistic prospect of the child being returned to their care. The permanence order and ancillary provisions,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] ScotSC 34
Parties
Applicant: East Lothian Council; First Respondent: S (the child's mother); Second Respondent: D (the child's father)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
13 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Application for Permanence Order Under Adoption and Children (scotland) Act 2007 / Appeal From Sheriff's Interlocutor Dated 6 May 2011
Outcome
Appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutor varied only in relation to the provision for contact.
Legal Topics
Permanence Orders, Adoption, Parental Rights and Responsibilities, Contact Orders, European Convention on Human Rights (articles 6 and 8)
Family Law Child Law Permanence Orders Adoption Parental Rights and Responsibilities Contact Orders European Convention on Human Rights (articles 6 and 8)

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

East Lothian Council

Applicant

S (the child's mother)

First Respondent

D (the child's father)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Permanence Order Under Adoption and Children (scotland) Act 2007 / Appeal From Sheriff's Interlocutor Dated 6 May 2011

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sheriff erred in granting a permanence order based on outdated findings and without proper evidential foundation for the statutory test under section 84(5)(c)(ii) of the 2007 Act
  2. 2 Whether the appellants' rights under Articles 6 and 8 ECHR were breached by the procedure adopted
  3. 3 Whether the sheriff erred in restricting contact between the appellants and the child

Ratio Decidendi

The sheriff did not err in law or procedure; the statutory test under section 84(5)(c)(ii) was sufficiently addressed based on the evidence and findings, the appellants had a fair hearing, and there was no realistic prospect of the child being returned to their care. The permanence order and ancillary provisions, including contact, were justified and necessary for the child's welfare.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutor varied only in relation to the provision for contact.

Orders

  • Sheriff's interlocutor of 6 May 2011 varied to insert provision for parents to respond annually with written information and updated photograph for transmission to child's carers.
  • Quoad ultra adheres to said interlocutor and refuses the appeal.