RT, NOTE IN PERMANENCE ORDER PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO THE CHILD [2017] ScotSC 9 (07 February 2017)

RT, NOTE IN PERMANENCE ORDER PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO THE CHILD [2017] ScotSC 9 (07 February 2017)

The children's hearing failed to competently continue the compulsory supervision order because it did not specify a definite period for continuation, resulting in the order lapsing. The only competent course was to continue the order for a definite period under section 138(3)(c) of the 2011 Act. The court declined to refer the case to the reporter as there was no order in force to vary.

Citation
[2017] ScotSC 9
Parties
Applicant: Shetland Islands Council; Subject: RT (the child); Respondents: Relevant persons (parents); Interested Party: Principal Reporter
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
07 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Permanence Order Proceedings / Interlocutory Hearing and Judicial Note
Outcome
Declined to refer the case to the reporter; made interim order for child's residence and contact.
Legal Topics
Compulsory Supervision Orders, Permanence Orders, Children's Hearings, Statutory Interpretation
Family Law Child Protection Compulsory Supervision Orders Permanence Orders Children's Hearings Statutory Interpretation

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shetland Islands Council

Applicant

RT (the child)

Subject

Relevant persons (parents)

Respondents

Principal Reporter

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Permanence Order Proceedings / Interlocutory Hearing and Judicial Note

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a compulsory supervision order was competently continued during permanence order proceedings
  2. 2 Interpretation of statutory provisions regarding continuation and expiry of compulsory supervision orders

Ratio Decidendi

The children's hearing failed to competently continue the compulsory supervision order because it did not specify a definite period for continuation, resulting in the order lapsing. The only competent course was to continue the order for a definite period under section 138(3)(c) of the 2011 Act. The court declined to refer the case to the reporter as there was no order in force to vary.

Court Disposition

Declined to refer the case to the reporter; made interim order for child's residence and contact.

Orders

  • Interim order made under section 97(2) of the 2007 Act for the child to reside with foster carers subject to contact conditions.
  • Declined to refer the case to the reporter under section 96(3) of the 2007 Act.