Parties and Background
This was an appeal against a permanence order granted in respect of a child, LSK. The appellants were the child’s parents, S and D. In May 2011 the court had determined that S and D had the right to have LSK live with them but that this would be detrimental to LSK’s welfare. Prior to this hearing, in June 2010, the court had determined that there was no person who had the right to have LSK live with them.

 

Parties’ Submissions
S and D submitted that the case had proceeded on the basis of an error in law made in June 2010, namely that there was no person who had the right to have LSK live with them. The appellants had not been given the opportunity to prove that they were capable of looking after LSK.  S and D’s rights under Articles 6 and 8 of the ECHR had therefore been breached. The sheriff had erred in his approach by basing his decision on prior findings which were out of date. He had also erred in making assumptions about the effect of returning LSK to his parents' in the absence of expert evidence. He assumed that the initial upset to LSK resulting in from such a move outweighed the possible long term benefits to LSK of living with his parents and sister.

Decision
The sheriff principal amended the contact provisions of the interlocutor but refused the appeal. There was no realistic possibility of the child being returned to the care of the appellants. The making of a permanence order was therefore virtually inevitable. There had been no breach of S and D’s right to a fair hearing under Article 6(1).