The pursuer and defender were respectively the father and mother of the child M (born 17 September 2006). Both parties had parental rights and responsibilities in respect of the child. The pursuer sought a residence order, failing which he sought a contact order in his favour. The defender, who had previously abducted M and taken her to New Zealand for some 6 months in 2009, sought a residence order in her favour and a specific issue order to allow her to move to New Zealand. Following M’s abduc ...
|
This was an appeal against a Sheriff’s refusal of an application for a permanence order under section 80 of the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007. The order was sought by the petitioners and appellants, Aberdeenshire Council, in respect of the child CW (born 5th December 2008) and was opposed by the respondents, the child's natural parents.It was submitted for the petitioners that the Sheriff had erred in law and failed to address the relevant question in terms of section 84(5)(c) of the ...
|
The City of Edinburgh Council sought a Permanence Order in relation to the child I (aged 4), who was subject to a supervision requirement under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. S, the natural father, opposed the petition. On 1st September 2010, a children’s hearing decided to reduce contact between I and S from once a month to once every three months. S successfully appealed against that decision, with the Sheriff allowing contact to take place once a month. Following contact in January, Februa ...
|
Hedley J made a Parental Order under s.54 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 in respect of a child born in the Ukraine via a surrogacy agreement. Attention was drawn to the six week period necessary for effective consent and the difficulties encountered by parents seeking to regularise their child's position in the UK following a commercial surrogacy agreement.
|
The CA allowed a mother's appeal against the granting to a father of leave to remove a boy of 12 to Canada. The Mother did not appeal against the grant of leave in respect of the boy's older brother aged 16 who had already travelled to Canada and was living there at the time of the appeal. The CA held that the judge had been wrong to consider the two boys as a unit and that different considerations applied to the younger child. The CA attached weight to the fact that the Father's wish to move to ...
|
The pursuer and minuter, and defender and respondent, were respectively the father and mother of the child RAD (born 23 March 2006). Both parties had parental rights and responsibilities in respect of the child, who had resided with the defender since birth. The parties separated in August 2006. The pursuer’s contact with the child was regulated by a contact order granted on 27 December 2007. On 23 April 2010, the pursuer lodged a minute seeking to recall the contact order, to interdict the defe ...
|
This was an appeal by the natural parents of a child, LSK (aged 27 months), against a Sheriff’s decision to grant a petition (a) making a permanence order in respect of the child in terms of sections 80 and 81 of the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007 Act; (b) extinguishing the natural parents’ parental rights and responsibilities subject to a restricted right to obtain information about the child in terms of section 82; (c) granting authority for the child to be adopted in terms of secti ...
|
The pursuer and respondent, LW, and the defender and minuter, JW, were respectively the mother and father of children KB (born 28th April 2001) and RB (born 15th January 2005). Both parties had parental rights and responsibilities in respect of the children. The parties were divorced by decree on 15th July 2009, with a residence order in respect of both children in favour of the respondent. The minuter, who had been refused contact with the children by the respondent since January 2009, sought t ...
|
In this petition, Inverclyde Council sought permanence orders under section 80 of the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007 in respect of three children; the first respondent and second respondent were respectively the mother and father of the children. In terms of the petition, the Council argued that it would be seriously detrimental to the welfare of the children for them to live with the respondents, because the respondents were drug addicts with mental health difficulties, who had dem ...
|
The CA heard an appeal in relation to a lengthy and serious fact finding hearing. Whilst the appeal was partially allowed in respect of some grounds in relation to the most serious allegations against the father the appeal was dismissed. The CA considered the nature of fact finding judgments and task of the fact finding judge.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |