OPINION OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY LORD DRUMMOND IN THE CAUSE BY M.P. AGAINST ELIZABETH TEMPLETON [2014] ScotCS CSIH_66 (15 July 2014)

OPINION OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY LORD DRUMMOND IN THE CAUSE BY M.P. AGAINST ELIZABETH TEMPLETON [2014] ScotCS CSIH_66 (15 July 2014)

The appellant did not satisfy the statutory criteria for being a 'relevant person' as he lacked parental rights, responsibilities, established family life, or ordinary charge/control over the children. The sheriff's findings of fact were justified and not open to attack on appeal, as no error of law or irregularity was demonstrated.

Citation
[2014] ScotCS CSIH_66
Parties
Appellant: MP; Respondent: Elizabeth Templeton
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
15 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Section 51(11)(b) of the Children (scotland) Act 1995 / Court of Session, Inner House, Extra Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; sheriff's decision affirmed.
Legal Topics
Definition of Relevant Person, Appeal Competency, Children's Hearings, Family Life Under ECHR
Family Law Child Protection Definition of Relevant Person Appeal Competency Children's Hearings Family Life Under ECHR

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MP

Appellant

Elizabeth Templeton

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under Section 51(11)(b) of the Children (scotland) Act 1995 / Court of Session, Inner House, Extra Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the appellant a 'relevant person' under section 93(2)(b) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995?
  2. 2 Does the appellant have the right to appeal to the sheriff under section 51 of the Act?
  3. 3 Did the sheriff err in her findings regarding the appellant's status and rights?

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant did not satisfy the statutory criteria for being a 'relevant person' as he lacked parental rights, responsibilities, established family life, or ordinary charge/control over the children. The sheriff's findings of fact were justified and not open to attack on appeal, as no error of law or irregularity was demonstrated.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; sheriff's decision affirmed.

Orders

  • Sheriff's first, second, and third questions answered in the negative.
  • No further orders as appellant lacks standing.