﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:trackback="http://madskills.com/public/xml/rss/module/trackback/">
  <channel>
    <title>Family</title>
    <description>Family Cases</description>
    <link>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/BlogId/648/Default.aspx</link>
    <language>en-GB</language>
    <webMaster>registration@casecheck.co.uk</webMaster>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 01:59:15 GMT</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 01:59:15 GMT</lastBuildDate>
    <docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss</docs>
    <generator>Blog RSS Generator Version 0.0.0.0</generator>
    <item>
      <title>Principal Reporter (Respondent) v K (Appellant) and others (Scotland) [2010] UKSC 56 15/12/2010</title>
      <description>This is a case about the rights of unmarried fathers to take part in children’s hearings under Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. It raises two distinct issues. The first concerns the kind of order made in the sheriff court which would be effective to give a father the right to take part in the children’s hearing. The second concerns the compatibility of the statutory scheme for participation in the children’s hearing with the rights of the father (and indeed the child) under the European Convention on Human Rights.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Supreme Court unanimously allows the appeal. Lord Hope and Lady Hale give the judgment of the Court. The Court holds that the sheriff’s order of 27 October 2006 was not incompetent and so recalls the First Division’s interlocutor and dismisses the petition. The Court declares that section 93(2)(b)(c) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 should be read so as to include the words “or who appears to have established family life with the child with which the decision of a children’s hearing may interfere”. The Court makes a finding that K is a “relevant person” within the meaning of section 93(2)(b)(c) as so read.</description>
      <link>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/16781/Default.aspx</link>
      <comments>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/16781/Default.aspx#Comments</comments>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&amp;EntryID=16781</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Dec 2010 01:35:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
      <trackback:ping>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/DesktopModules/BlogPlus/Trackback.aspx?id=16781</trackback:ping>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
